From reactive to proactive – Can LPIs deliver?

In his article ‘Thinking about Process Indicators’ Andrew Hopkins has questioned our understanding of what constitute leading and lagging indicators of safety. He has drawn attention to the highly-regarded and influential Baker report into the Texas City Disaster of 2005 and to the UK Health and Safety Executive’s guidance on leading and lagging performance indicators in order to develop his arguments. From my reading of his article, I understand that the distinction between personal and process measures of safety are well-understood and well-documented. The issue in question is how to define a leading rather than a lagging indicator of safety and it is here that confusion appears to reign. In addressing the issues raised by Hopkins in his article, I will turn to my experiences with the UK oil and gas industry and in particular, to my involvement in producing guidance documentation for the industry focusing on leading performance indicators for safety (LPIs), in order to try and clarify some of the issues raised. 2. Disentangling the confusion of LPIs?