There is much within safety discussion on the limitations of lagging metrics and the need to establish better ways of measuring safety. But what if the issue was not the type of metric, but measurement and the behavioural consequences of measurement? And what if performance indicators that we use to measure safety meant different things to people?

The presentation will explore the behavioural effect of performance metrics. Based on empirical research with 20 safety leaders overseeing large and global organisations, the discussion will consider how the interpretation of performance metrics is fundamental in shaping how individuals respond to metrics. Using TRIFR as an example, the presentation will challenge the focus on finding the perfect indicator to measure safety and encourage attendees to consider the context and consequences of measurement.

Drawing from his research, James will demonstrate how a safety metric can be interpreted in many different ways simultaneously. Whilst TRIFR can be interpreted as a measure of the safety within an organisation, it can also be interpreted as a sign of management control, a means of motivation, a sign of self-promotion, a measure of risk and an indicator of trust in leadership. In our pursuit of the perfect metric for safety, we are overlooking meaning and human behaviour.

Key Take-outs:

🔹 Safety metrics should be viewed not as scientific instruments but behavioural triggers. 🔹 The meaning and use of safety metrics is not singular but multiple and therefore contestable and conflictual. 🔹 An individual's response to safety metrics is shaped by the context of use and consequences for them. 🔹 In our pursuit of the perfect tool, we need to consider how it is used and the consequences of measurement on individuals. 🔹 We also need to consider the ethics of safety metrics.