This website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.
This Website Uses Cookies By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to our cookie policy. Learn MoreThis website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.
Recently one of our potential customers asked this question: For a firm that has a DART rate of 0.5, and would like to get to a DART rate of 0.2, to help make the compelling case for change, what is the likelihood that you’re more likely to experience an SIF event having a DART rate of 0.5, thus the need for change?
Human nature involves risk taking; every human takes calculated risks on a daily basis. Safety is about removing risks, and thus competes with human nature. We can address this by trying to change human nature or by increasing the capacity to calculate risks more accurately.
Since the advent of the safety function, it’s been borrowing tools from other disciplines and building practices based on data gleaned from the earliest research in industrial psychology.
RSS
