Near Miss Reporting .... Really?

owen94377
Jul 31, 2017
4 min read

The infamous near miss report, a term and process widely used throughout industry. But to what value and what intent?

In industry we have found the near-miss reporting process debated in meaning, intent and value.

Meaning - We argue points of departure with examples such as shooting at a target. We say "near-miss", meaning we nearly missed which in turn means that we actually hit the target. Thus, the audience advocating this view would settle for, "near-hit" as opposed to near-miss.

Intent - it is viewed that to report a number of near misses, will provide an indication of things to come, supported by the famous Frank Bird triangle. The workforce is instructed to report a certain number of near misses per person, per level on a weekly or monthly basis. This information is analysed to establish trends and develop action plans and campaigns.

Value - We once again perceive the value of the process, to support the Frank Bird triangle ratios to predict incidents and injuries and to act proactively.

So what is a near-miss .....really?

In my experience, bench-marking internationally from 1st to 3rd world countries, including small operations right up to DuPont and Disney World, a near miss, for all practical (not theoretical) purposes, is an event that occurs, where there is no physical damage to property, or the environment and where no person is injured. This is basically an incident where there was no damage or injury.

One could then bring in the typical, brick on a scaffold scenario. A brick falls from a scaffold to the ground, but nobody is injured. However, someone could have been standing there, so it is classified as a near miss. It is right here where we miss the plot completely.

Yes, I agree that should someone have been standing there, they could have been hit by the brick, or it could have narrowly missed them. But these scenarios all relate to injury and the potential for injury or loss, or damage, caused by at-risk conditions and at-risk behaviour. If nothing happened, it is a merely a condition.

What a near-miss is not.

A cable on the floor across a walkway, presents a tripping hazard. It is an at-risk condition, not a near miss, nothing has happened. If someone almost trips over it, it is a near miss, bu if they identify it before they fall over it, it is an observation of a condition, the same thing a Safety Officer would document on an inspection report.
A brick on the edge of a scaffold is a condition, not a near miss, nothing has happened.
Open electrical wires are not a near miss, nothing has happened. Almost coming into contact with these wires would constitute a near miss, but otherwise, it is a sub-standard condition. Should a person come into contact with the open wires and be electrocuted, the cause would be a sub-standard condition in that there was exposed electrical wires.

What is the common denominator? The event. Something that has the potential to cause injury or damage is defined as a hazard, however, without interaction with the hazard, it cannot become a risk. Thus, it remains an at-risk condition, or an at-risk behaviour.

Do the test.

Have a look at the contents of your near-miss forms and compare it to the safety officer inspection report ...... looks the same doesn't it? Its because we do not understand and cannot properly articulate the different between a condition, behaviour and a near miss. Our people don't report near misses, they report conditions or behaviours that could lead to injury or damage, which is nothing other than a inspection report or a behaviour observation.

So what is the answer?

Firstly, we need to stop forcing our employees to report near misses. David G Broadbent a Safety Psychologist wrote a great article in June 2017 on the Frank Bird triangle "Is it time to finally pluck the bird?", which I have to agree with. Each organisation has a different shape of their triangle. The nature of some business models do not fit the triangle, imagine a bomb squad reporting near misses?

Do yourself a favour and compare just the LTI, Serious and Fatal injuries of your organisation to the triangle to see how it stacks up.

We agree that as per theory, all near misses should be treated as injuries, as it is only a matter of centimeters between the brick narrowly missing someone vs striking them. It is exactly for this reason that we should not force employees to report a certain number of near misses per week. To get any value from the process, we need to investigate each near miss. Subsequently, to get any value from the process overall, the near misses need to be legitimate events and not conditions, which are fixed with action plans from the Safety Officer report.

Depending on the maturity of your organisation, its appetite for discipline and the reaction to near miss reports, it is less than likely that anyone will report an almost injury in fear of reprimand.

In Conclusion

To get value from your near miss program, report near misses (not conditions) that actually happen, when they happen. Investigate these and take action.