In the last decade or so many organizations have been placing more of a focus on Serious Injury and Fatality prevention (SIF). The theory behind the traditional “Safety Pyramid” (or Heinrich Safety Triangle) says if we reduce incidents at the “base” of the pyramid, it follows we will reduce incidents at the top of the pyramid at an approximately proportional rate.
Although it seems to make perfect, intuitive sense that people would get hurt when they are doing the most dangerous things, that isn’t what actually happens to more than 95 percent of us. So, what does this mean in terms of the old risk assessment matrix?
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?