How Carriers Can Lead with Lagging Indicators
Dave Elniski, AMTA Industry Advisor, Safety & Compliance
This article will be published in March of 2022 in the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance’s (CVSA) magazine, Guardian. Digital editions of Guardian can be found at this link.
In occupational health and safety (OHS), indicators of a workplace’s performance can be broadly divided into two categories: lagging indicators and leading indicators. Lagging indicators are measurements of incidents that have occurred in the past whereas leading indicators are measurements that are predictive of future OHS incidents [1].
Organisations are usually most familiar with lagging indicators. Examples in workplace OHS include injury rates and incident reports. For a motor carrier’s highway safety program, examples of lagging indicators include collision rates, incident reports, and violations/fines from law enforcement.
While leading indicators are more complicated to use than lagging indicators, they are valuable measurements for proactive motor carriers. Examples of workplace leading indicators are the number of workplace inspections performed and worker training rates. For a carrier’s on-highway safety performance, leading indicator examples include pre-trip frequency and quality, hours-of-service (HOS) performance, and ongoing driver training activities.
Generally speaking, using lagging indicators is reactive and using leading indicators is proactive. However, proactive and reactive are connotation-loaded words since proactive safety is considered superior to reactive safety. This is true inasmuch as being proactive can prevent a loss (like a collision) whereas reactive safety management only kicks in once a loss has occurred. But, all indicators are valuable to a carrier; even a highly proactive carrier that has experienced a loss should still react to the loss by investigating and implementing any warranted corrective actions.
Focusing only on one type of indicator while neglecting others isn’t the best approach. Carriers should develop a system for monitoring both lagging and leading indicators, use all available information to improve safety, and stay abreast of best practices to improve their proactivity.
On-road law enforcement provides carriers with an external inspection system into the workplace driver behaviour and carrier safety practices. Anything negative received from law enforcement is a lagging indicator. Examples include fines for unsafe driving behaviour, fines for unsafe equipment, out-of-service declarations for violations of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance’s Out-of-Service Criteria, and noted defects on an inspection report.
On-road law enforcement, from a driver’s and carrier’s perspective, is a generator of lagging indicators. This is because law enforcement intervenes when problems are present and the resulting enforcement action is a loss for the carrier and driver; reports of defects from law enforcement describe a carrier deficiency and represent a negative incident that has already occurred.
Once a carrier receives a violation-laden inspection report or fine, it is time to be reactive. First, there may be reporting requirements for the defects on the report and any fines will have to be paid or disputed before a certain date. Second, the carrier may have an internal system to react to such an occurrence including driver disciplining, additional training, and internal evaluation. These are all markers of a reactive culture. Not a bad thing: reacting and responding are the only options once a carrier learns of a negative incident.
Reactive carriers can become proactive by learning from their lagging indicators. A lagging indicator typically has a corresponding leading indicator(s) that could influence future rates of the lagging indicator in question. Here are some examples:
-Lagging indicator: A driver was placed out of service for an HOS violation.
Corresponding leading indicator: The carrier’s internal HOS monitoring frequency, depth, and follow-up.
Lagging indicator: A roadside inspection report identified rubbing airlines and a drum brake pushrod measuring over its brake adjustment limit.
-Corresponding leading indicator: The carrier’s frequency of routine vehicle inspections and maintenance for those components.
Lagging indicator: A carrier was ticketed for being overweight on an axle group.
-Corresponding leading indicator: The frequency and depth by which drivers are trained in legal weights and loading procedures.
Each of the above leading indicator examples are measurable and monitorable by a carrier. Many more examples could be provided, but the point is this: examples of past poor performance provide opportunities for systematically-improved future performance.
The activities being measured by a leading indicator reduce the risk of a future negative event. For example, monitoring HOS records and identifying violations to drivers is an activity a carrier can do to reduce the chance of receiving HOS-related violations when being inspected by law enforcement. If a carrier identifies and pays attention to its leading indicators, it will see a decrease in the corresponding lagging indicators.
In other words, being proactive by monitoring leading indicators helps a carrier take control of its future safety performance: less is left to chance.
Lagging indicators from law enforcement present a carrier with opportunities to improve their proactivity and leading indicator monitoring. Carriers should never stop taking lagging indicators seriously, but to bring about a proactive, safety- and compliance-focused culture, carriers should establish ways of monitoring leading indicators that can translate to improved safety performance on the road and in the yard.
When leading and lagging indicators are both understood and valued in their own way, a bad day will suggest a pathway to better days ahead.
References
1 – Government of Alberta. 2015. Leading Indicators for Workplace Health and Safety: a user guide. Accessed January 7th, 2022, from https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/17acecf3-0922-41b3-97b8-8b43ac27c304/resource/00ea4194-eed2-4eb1-89d9-e7bc1c3f0e8a/download/2015-03-ohs-best-practices-bp019.pdf