Analysing safety data for an entire industry group – a case study from Queensland coal seam gas
Kevin Geddert A B *A
B
![]() Kevin Geddert is an experienced measurement professional. He has spent years designing key performance indicators across diverse business functions including finance, operations, HR, supply chain, maintenance, and safety. Kevin is a researcher into methods of measuring safety performance. His interest in the area of measuring safety stems from the fact that, of all the things he has measured, safety is the area where the current measures cause the most problems. |
Abstract
This is a case study tracking an innovation in incident data usage for an industry cohort. The industry group Safer Together has been collecting and collating data since 2009; for the last 10 years the process has been handled by one of the participating operating companies. In the fourth quarter of 2023, a transition was made to partner with a data analytics specialist who is also a researcher from Griffith University’s Safety Science Innovation Lab. This case study outlines the processes introduced to take 15 years’ worth of industry data and turn it into actionable insights. The introduction of new data capture tools allowed for easier industry participation. Innovative approaches to analysis, including a pilot program on quantifying injury severity, have changed the conversation around industry safety performance in the Queensland coal seam gas (CSG) industry. The change in the data analysis approach has enabled one key transition: data has transitioned from a briefly referenced item on the senior leadership agenda to a driver of engaging conversations about safety performance at an executive level. The Senior Leaders Group at Safer Together has endorsed the sharing of aggregated results for the industry cohort so that others may understand the processes introduced and see what is driving renewed executive-level interest in incident data for Queensland CSG.
Keywords: coal seam gas, data analysis, exposure, frequency, high potential events, injury rate, mechanisms of injury, performance measurement, process safety, safety, SAIF, severity, severity adjusted injury frequency, TRIF.
![]() Kevin Geddert is an experienced measurement professional. He has spent years designing key performance indicators across diverse business functions including finance, operations, HR, supply chain, maintenance, and safety. Kevin is a researcher into methods of measuring safety performance. His interest in the area of measuring safety stems from the fact that, of all the things he has measured, safety is the area where the current measures cause the most problems. |
References
Dekker S (2017) Zero Vision: enlightenment and new religion. Policy and Practice in Health and Safety 15(2), 101-107.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Dekker SWA, Tooma M (2022) A capacity index to replace flawed incident‐based metrics for worker safety. International Labour Review 161(3), 375-393.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Erkal EDO, Hallowell M (2023) Moving Beyond TRIR: Measuring & Monitoring Safety Performance With High-Energy Control Assessments. Professional Safety 68(05), 26-35 Available at https://onepetro.org/PS/article-abstract/68/05/26/519591/.
| Google Scholar |
Geddert K, Dekker S, Rae A (2021) How Does Selective Reporting Distort Understanding of Workplace Injuries? Safety 7(3), 58.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Probst TM, Estrada AX (2010) Accident under-reporting among employees: testing the moderating influence of psychological safety climate and supervisor enforcement of safety practices. Accident Analysis & Prevention 42(5), 1438-1444.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Probst TM, Graso M (2013) Pressure to produce=pressure to reduce accident reporting? Accident Analysis & Prevention 59, 580-587.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Thomas EJ (2020) The harms of promoting ‘Zero Harm’. BMJ Quality & Safety 29(1), 4-6.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |