Workplace Safety Management

Instructions – Metrics

Measurement is an important part of any occupational safety and health management system approach and forms the basis for continuous improvement. There are two types of performance measurement indicators used to evaluate safety performance, leading and lagging measures. Leading indicators are measurable factors that indicate direction of performance or future value. Examples include the reporting of recommendations or results of an accident investigation to illustrate changes and improvements for the future. Other examples of leading measures include, percentage of training completed versus expected, the number of new (improved) controls implemented, and the number of hazard evaluations performed.

On the other hand, lagging measures indicate facts about past events. Lagging measures include items like the number of accidents that occurred, injury frequency and severity, OSHA citations, workers compensation claims, and experience modification rates. Information for safety performance can be derived from a variety of sources, including audits, surveys, studies, investigations, and injury occurrence reporting. Many EHS professionals use a combination of indicators when reporting safety performance to management. Lagging indicators refer to actions that have occurred in the past. Despite the trend to examine leading indicators, many companies including OSHA still rely on lagging indicators as a predictor of EHS program success.

This assignment provides you with one of the principle methods recommended by OSHA to calculate lost workday injury incidence rates using the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Incidence Rate Calculation Tool.

You will use the tools to populate the forms with the data provided in Parts A of this assignment.

Part B has been modified as OSHA has removed the Safety Pays Calculator from its Small Business web page.

Next, you will apply the information obtained and prepare a paper that discusses incidence rate calculations and justifies to senior management why this information (data) should be considered when evaluating a company’s EHS efforts. The paper must contain a discussion that offers your opinion of the data you calculated, including a discussion about leading and lagging indicators adding value to the company’s EHS program. Make sure to provide an example of both of these performance indicators.

Resources

Case Study – Bubbly Brews Beverage Company

The company you work for is Bubbly Brews, a mid-sized craft brewery located in Littleton Colorado. Your company has just been purchased by a larger corporation in order to access additional resources and expertise. According to the terms of the sale, this change in ownership does not affect the Bubbly Brew’s company’s organizational framework including company values, mission and defined ethical responsibilities, company policies, programs, and practices. However, accompanying this change of ownership includes a new requirement for written reports to the corporate division for review and comment.

Currently, Bubbly Brews only uses lagging indicators as a method to evaluate injury and illness trends. This is considered a more reactive approach and may not be the best method employed, however it is the current method used.

Let’s assume that our company has established a health and safety program, but still has issues and ongoing safety and health needs. At the time of the sale, Bubbly Brews would be considered a medium sized employer with a non-unionized work force comprised of 200 full-time employees. This does not include the 75-100 part-time seasonal employees, contractors, etc. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO), JC Bubbly, is a straight shooting, honest CEO that supports the EHS efforts to date, without a mention of accountability.

Data:

Part A – BLS Incidence Rate Calculation

At year-end, 2012, the company has recorded 30 injuries listed in Column H of the OSHA 300 log.
There were 10 carpal tunnel cases recorded in Column J (Other) and 23 first aid cases.
Of the 30 injuries, 20 cases involve lost time cases that represent 188 days lost.
Of the 10 Carpal Tunnel cases, 6 of the 10 cases resulted in a total of 86 days away from work and represent 150 days of restricted work activity.
None of the 23 first aid cases required hospitalization; however, 9 required x-rays to determine the extent of internal damage.
Total employee hours worked for the year is 1,352,000.

Using the information provided above, calculate the company’s incidence rate using the BLS tool. Link:  https://data.bls.gov/iirc/ (Links to an external site.)

BLS provides a help/support for its tool at https://www.bls.gov/help/def/iirc.htm (Links to an external site.).

There are two formulas, please use both. When using the short formula, note that you can compare calculated results that examines how Bubbly Brews compares with business peers/competitors.

Important Input Information

In addition to the data from above, the following information is necessary to complete the short formula. When you are using the BLS formula and you reach Step 3, Use the following information when prompted.
Year = 2012
Area = Private sector
Supersector = Manufacturing Industry
NAICS number 312120 Total number of injury and illness cases for the facility – 40 cases
Tip: use the data mentioned above to help you complete the industry comparison formula

Part B – Safety Pays Calculation – removed 10.3.19 – Refer to Revised information above.
Expectations

Once you have compiled this information, prepare a paper for the new senior management that explains your findings and includes a discussion about change needed in the EHS management systems. The Anderson Academic Commons is a good place to begin your research.

Deliverables

Deliverable: a paper for the CEO that explains why lagging and leading measures are important as indicators for safety performance.

Your paper must be 6 – 8 pages in length (1200 – 1500 words), excluding the cover sheet and references section.
Further, the paper must contain a discussion on why using the calculated results obtained is important for upper management to consider and offer an explanation as to why making changes to the companies EHS program, policies, or practices might be necessary. In addition to identifying risk, the paper must contain proposed solutions.
Targeted Audience: Upper Management
Follow University College Writing Guidelines format, according to UCOL formatting and writing guidelines. Use Turabian style to cite your references.
Include a title page and reference page. Use at least two outside academic sources other than the textbook, course materials, or other information provided as part of the course materials as part of your paper (3-5 total references).

Formatting Requirements

When working on written assignments in this course, there is an expectation that you will consult outside sources, including articles from peer-reviewed periodicals. When you use an outside source, please be sure to include the references you needed to support your position.
Refer to the UCOL Format and Style Requirements on the Course Homepage, and be sure to properly cite your sources using Turabian Author-Date style citations.

Metrics
Metrics
Criteria Ratings Pts
Thesis Statement 15.0 to >13.0 pts
Excellent: Thesis is clear and focused; argues a point; offers original analysis; serves as an organizing principle for the entire paper. 13.0 to >10.5 pts
Proficient: Thesis is clear and focused; argues a point; recycles class discussion but offers some original analysis; serves as an organizing principle for most of the paper. 10.5 to >7.5 pts
Developing: Thesis is clear but unfocused; recycles class discussion; serves as an organizing principle for parts of the paper. 7.5 to >0.0 pts
Unsatisfactory: Thesis is unclear and/or unrelated to assignment. 0.0 pts
No points
15.0 pts
Course Content Connection 20.0 to >17.0 pts
Excellent: Paper demonstrates mastery of course content; makes numerous/rich connections to course content, terms, and ideas. 17.0 to >14.0 pts
Proficient: Paper demonstrates comprehension of course content; makes several/useful connections to course content, terms, and ideas. 14.0 to >10.0 pts
Developing: Paper demonstrates engagement with course content; makes a few connections to course content, terms, and ideas. 10.0 to >0.0 pts
Unsatisfactory: Paper demonstrates lack of engagement with course content; makes no/strained connections to course content, terms, and ideas. 0.0 pts
No points
20.0 pts
Supporting Evidence 25.0 to >21.0 pts
Excellent: Paper supports each claim with compelling evidence; evidence is seamlessly integrated into paper. 21.0 to >17.5 pts
Proficient: Paper supports most claims with relevant evidence; most evidence is integrated into paper. 17.5 to >12.5 pts
Developing: Paper supports some claims with evidence, but evidence is not always relevant; some evidence is integrated into paper, but some evidence (block quotations, etc.) disrupts the flow of the paper. 12.5 to >0.0 pts
Unsatisfactory: Paper includes many supported claims; most evidence (block quotations, etc.) disrupts the flow of the paper. 0.0 pts
No points
25.0 pts
Organization and Style 15.0 to >13.0 pts
Excellent: Paragraphs begin with topic sentences that support thesis; smooth transitional sentences connect paragraphs; conclusion moves beyond summary. Sentence structure is varied throughout paper. 13.0 to >10.5 pts
Proficient: Paragraphs begin with topic sentences that relate to thesis; transitional sentences connect most paragraphs; conclusion is mostly summary; prose is clear and serviceable; sentence structure is somewhat varied. 10.5 to >7.5 pts
Developing: Some paragraphs being with topic sentences that relate to thesis; transitional sentences connect some paragraphs; conclusion is strictly summary; prose is coherent; sentence structure is elementary. 7.5 to >0.0 pts
Unsatisfactory: Few paragraphs begin with topic sentences that relate to thesis; paragraphs are not connected; conclusion is absent; prose is awkward and, in places, incoherent. 0.0 pts
No points
15.0 pts
Grammar and Mechanics 15.0 to >13.0 pts
Excellent: Paper demonstrates almost perfect grammar and mechanics; no more than 1 major error (sentence fragment, run-on sentence, comma splice); no more than 2 minor errors (typos, spelling, subject-verb agreement, punctuation, etc.). 13.0 to >10.5 pts
Proficient: Paper demonstrates competent grammar and mechanics; no more than 2 major errors; no more than 4 minor errors. 10.5 to >7.5 pts
Developing: Paper demonstrates inconsistent grammar and mechanics; no more than 3 major errors; no more than 5 minor errors. 7.5 to >0.0 pts
Unsatisfactory: Paper demonstrates incompetent grammar and mechanics; 4 major errors or more; 6 minor errors or more. 0.0 pts
No points
15.0 pts
References 10.0 to >8.5 pts
Excellent: Turabian style is used. The paper has no citation errors and no errors on the works cited page. 8.5 to >7.0 pts
Proficient: Paper demonstrates competent grammar and mechanics; no more than 2 major errors; no more than 4 minor errors. 7.0 to >5.0 pts
Proficient: Turabian style is used. The paper has 1 to 2 citation errors and no errors on the works cited page. 5.0 to >0.0 pts
Unsatisfactory: The paper has more than 2 citation errors and more than 2 errors on the works cited page. 0.0 pts
No points
10.0 pts
Total Points: 100.0