Safety Science xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Safety Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ssci

A new framework for HSE performance measurement and monitoring

Payam Amir-Heidari a,⇑, Reza Maknoon a, Bahram Taheri a, Mahdieh Bazyari b
a
HSE Engineering Group, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
b
Department of Environment, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Measurement of performance is rooted in quality measurement subject which has been one of the chal-
Received 24 July 2016 lenging branches of the research in the recent years. Measurement of the performance of an organization
Received in revised form 11 October 2016 in the field of health, safety and environment (HSE) is a prerequisite for continual improvement policy
Accepted 1 November 2016
which is the spirit of the new HSE management systems. In this work, after a review of literature, the
Available online xxxx
HSE key performance indicators (KPIs) and frameworks for measurement of HSE performance were
reviewed, and a comprehensive classification of KPIs based on three factors (time, scope, and type)
Keywords:
was presented. In this research a new framework with an innovative philosophical and mathematical for-
Performance measurement
HSE, key performance indicators (KPIs)
mulation was presented for performance measurement. In the proposed framework, by combination of
Lag indicators qualitative and quantitative techniques, a logical selection-aggregation process is performed to deter-
Lead indicators mine the performance status from KPIs. The proposed methodology is based on ‘award and punishment’
policy, and it aggregates the negative and positive performance elements to compute the HSE perfor-
mance index. In this methodology a lead index and a lag index are calculated and combined to compute
the overall HSE index. This methodology was used in a case study for performance measurement in three
drilling companies. The results indicated that the model is applicable in the industry for HSE performance
measurement and monitoring. The presented framework is risk-related and has 12 special characteristics
which makes it possible to use it as a basis for development of an international ISO standard for perfor-
mance measurement.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction indicators (KPIs) are the fundamental building blocks to the mea-
surement and monitoring process of HSE MS (Haas and Yorio,
Determining a mechanism for performance measurement and 2016).
monitoring is a key part of any management system (Hawksley, KPIs are used to monitor progression over time within a com-
1999). There is an old belief that says: if you cannot measure some- pany or to compare results between companies, the so-called
thing, you cannot manage it (Hendershot, 2007). Like measuring benchmark (Swuste et al., 2016). The information provided via per-
instruments which are used for measuring quantitative parame- formance indicators can be used to facilitate strategic HSE MS
ters, indicators or proxies can be used for measuring quality or decision-making and the implementation of appropriate risk man-
‘qualitative statuses’. The definition and use of health, safety and agement actions (Haas and Yorio, 2016). Key performance indictors
environment (HSE) performance indicators has a long history and can also be used in evaluation and comparison of the HSE-MS per-
can be traced back to 1959 (Swuste et al., 2016). formance of contractors, and this can be useful in selection of con-
Today, risk management is regarded as the heart of the world- tractors by clients (Mohammadfam et al., 2012).
class HSE management systems. Based on the international risk In HSE KPIs literature, a few researchers studied the health (H),
management standard (ISO 31000, 2009), to be sure about risk safety (S) and environment (E) together as HSE (Antao et al., 2016;
management effectiveness, organizations must measure risk man- Mohammadfam et al., 2012). Because of the numerous advantages
agement performance against some proper indicators. Based on of integration of H, S and E, and since today these fields are man-
monitoring of performance, it can be determined that how risk aged under an integrated management system (IMS), it is essential
management policy and plan must be improved. Key performance that a unite framework be developed for measuring and assessing
the performance of integrated HSE. The performance measurement
⇑ Corresponding author at: HSE Engineering Group, Amirkabir University of of each field of HSE may need its special considerations. Therefore,
Technology, Hafez Avenue, Tehran, Iran. a professional study of the performance of each field may be
E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Amir-Heidari). needed, however they can be measured and monitored using a

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.11.001
0925-7535/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Amir-Heidari, P., et al. A new framework for HSE performance measurement and monitoring. Safety Sci. (2016), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.11.001
2 P. Amir-Heidari et al. / Safety Science xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

single framework. A new simple such framework will be presented indicators (EPIs) were selected based on the results of previous
in this paper. research projects and further discussion with port stakeholders.
In most of the past researches, a useful framework was not pro- In that work, the indicators were categorized in 4 fields of HSSE
vided for measuring HSE performance. The result of the researches (i.e. H, S, SE and E). Also there was a discrimination between lead
has been mostly limited to a list of descriptive KPIs, sometimes and lag indicators. Finally, from the large number of identified
classified according to their common properties. In this work an indicators, a few were selected for performance measurement
innovative framework with a semi-quantitative structure is pre- (6 KPIs for OHSS and 24 indicators for Environment).
sented which, after determining the specific KPIs, can be used to Wu et al. (2015) provided insights into cause-effect relation-
determine and evaluate the HSE performance. The framework is ships between leading safety performance indicators and goals in
designed based on KPIs ‘selection’ and ‘aggregation’ process, and the construction industry. The authors explained that the level of
is rooted in ‘‘reward and punishment” policy. safety performance in construction sites is mainly affected by four
Because of the importance of risk management in world-class aspects: safety climate, safety culture, safety attitude and safety
HSE management systems, in most of the recent researches, there behavior. Based on literature review, they determined 26 key indi-
is an attempt to relate KPIs to risk (Swuste et al., 2016; Rogers and cators to measure these four aspects. In that work, Structure Equa-
Pasman, 2013; Hassan and Khan, 2012). In our innovative frame- tion Modeling (SEM) method was used to determine the degree of
work, the KPIs measurement is related to risk in a rational manner, importance of these aspects. Then, a combination of SEM and Max-
which in spite of simplicity will be supportive of the conventional imum Degree of Membership (MDM) was employed for measure-
risk management programs. ment and evaluation of safety performance. This methodology
It may be predictable that an ISO standard will be released to was used for comparison of the safety performance of different sec-
present a general framework for performance measurement via tors of construction industry, based on the defined performance
KPIs (Rogers and Pasman, 2013). The strong framework proposed indicators. In this methodology, the final aggregated performance
in this work is general enough to be used for continuous perfor- index is a vector in fuzzy format. Despite the strong theory, this
mance measurement in any type of organization or company. method is relatively complicated and time-consuming, so it may
In the following sections, after a review of literature and past be inappropriate for continuous use in every kind of company.
works, our proposed methodology is described in detail. Then a Hassan and Khan (2012) presented a hierarchical structure for
case study with its typical results will be presented and the special monitoring and assessment of asset integrity indicators, which
characteristics of the proposed framework will be explained. are closely related to process safety. In that work, a so-called ‘risk
metric’ was used to classify asset integrity through the integration
of leading and lagging indicators’ outcome. Expert opinion and AHP
2. Literature review process were used to determine the weights of indicators, and for
aggregation of the indicators to determine asset integrity risk level,
Measurement of HSE status is rooted in quality measurement or ‘risk-based asset integrity indicator’. After creating the hierar-
subject which has been of the interesting areas of research in ser- chical structure of indicators and determining the weight of them,
vice quality and health care quality measurement (Donald et al., a ‘risk factor’ value was assigned to each specific indicator, beside
2003; McGlynn et al., 2003; Silvestro et al., 1990; Panzer et al., its weight. The risk factor for leading and lagging indicators was
2013; Philip and Hazlett, 1997; Fitzpatrick et al., 1992; Guillemin defined separately. For a lagging indicator, it was equal to the mul-
et al., 1993; Bowling, 1997; Parasuramann et al., 1993; tiplication of event frequency and its consequence severity, and for
McAlexander et al., 1994; Mant, 2001). Besides, performance mea- a leading indicator it was calculated by multiplying the related fail
surement has been also of the active areas of research in manage- percent (100 - % success) by the importance of that indicator. Then
ment and business (Chong, 2008; Kennerley and Neely, 2003; the aggregation was performed by applying weighted arithmetic
Bowlin, 1998). Definition of ‘indicators’, ‘measures’, ‘proxies’ or mean of ‘risk factor’ values for each level in the hierarchical struc-
‘metrics’ is the key point of quality and performance measurement ture. In this methodology, the mean of each level becomes the
in majority of these works. Similarly, in HSE performance measure- input for its root in the upper level, and through a bottom-to-top
ment, the recent studies have focused on ‘key performance indica- process the final value of ‘‘risk-based asset integrity indicator” is
tors (KPIs). determined. After aggregation, a guide table or criteria table was
In the past works in the area of HSE KPIs, researchers used dif- used to evaluate the calculated indicator level. The used criteria
ferent methodologies to identify and select performance indica- table is very like to legends which are used beside conventional
tors. Juglaret et al. (2011) suggested that because health and risk matrices.
safety management systems are made up of several interacting ele- In spite of different methodologies used for measuring HSE per-
ments that compromise a unit cycle, indicators should be selected formance by KPIs in the past researches, there are yet some more
to provide information on the distinct effectiveness of each ele- fundamental discussions indicating ambiguities in classification
ment. These elements include change management, leadership and use of different types of KPIs. Most of these discussions were
development, contractor management, emergency preparedness, presented in a critical paper published by Hopkins (2007). Because
etc. A similar approach for identification of KPIs based on HSE of the importance of the discussions, a brief categorization of HSE
MS elements was recognized in some other researches KPIs is provided in Table 1 based on review of the literature.
(Podgorski, 2015; Haas and Yorio, 2016; Wurzelbacher and Jin, The classification based on ‘scope’ and ‘time’ has been discussed
2011). broadly in the previous works. The ‘type’ categorization is rather
Antao et al. (2016) presented a set of performance indicators for new, and it was introduced by Hopkins (2007). He distinguished
use in port areas. In that work, the key performance indicators of between two concepts related to lead safety KPIs: ‘input measure’
health, safety, security and environment (HSSE) were studied and ‘output measure’. These concepts were explained by an exam-
together. The methodology used to identify and select HSS indica- ple: ‘‘considering the percentage of equipment that is past due for
tors involved two different methods: (1) a bottom-up method, inspection for active monitoring of this type, there are really two
where an extended analysis was performed in order to assess the sets of indicators of interest. First, there are indicators of whether
current indicators applied by ports, and (2) a top-down approach, monitoring is being carried out in a timely fashion (percent of tests
mainly based on legislation and regulations as well as feedback conducted by due date). Second, there are indicators of the results
from stakeholders. Besides, the environmental performance of the monitoring (percent of cases in which equipment fails the

Please cite this article in press as: Amir-Heidari, P., et al. A new framework for HSE performance measurement and monitoring. Safety Sci. (2016), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.11.001
 P. Amir-Heidari et al. / Safety Science xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 3

Table 1 defined indicators. Usually, multi-criteria decision making

Categorization of HSE KPIs based on different criteria. (MCDM) analysis methods are used for prioritization and selection
Criteria Categories Example of important indicators. These methods include AHP (Analytic
Scope Process Rate of LOCs (loss of containment) Hierarchy Process), ANP (Analytic Network Process), TOPSIS (Tech-
safety nique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution), etc.
Personal Rate of falls (Podgorski, 2015).
safety Aggregation consists in determining the value of a higher level
Health Rate of reported health problems
Environment Rate of oil spill events
performance indicator, with the aim to reflect values of all under-
HSE MS Rate of internal HSE MS audits lying indicators (sub-indicators) in collective and synthetic man-
Time Lead Percent of equipment passed mechanical integrity
ner. Such collective indicators are usually referred to as
tests successfully integrated, aggregate or composite indicators. One of the common
Lag Rate of LOCs (loss of containment) methods of aggregation is use of arithmetic or linear mean. In the
Type Input Percent of technical inspections conducted by due case of linear aggregation the value of composite indicator is often
date calculated as a weighted mean of constituent indicators. Geomet-
Output Percent of inspection cases in which equipment rical mean and other methods are also used for aggregation, each
fails the test
have their advantages and disadvantages. The KPIs received in
the course of aggregation of sub-indicators are being applied in
many business and public sector, in order to measure and compare
test). The first is a measure of monitoring activity, while the second the performance between enterprises, countries, regions, etc. They
is a measure of equipment adequacy. The first can be termed an have been also used for measurement of safety of nuclear power
input measure and the second an output measure. Both surely plants (Podgorski, 2015).
relevant”. A combination of selection and aggregation is probably the best
From a monitoring point of view, this statement can be gener- method to be used in the design of a good framework for HSE per-
alized similarly to other KPIs. This means that for determining formance measurement. The selection process can be done based
the performance of an organization, the lack of complete measure- on expert opinion using many existing sound methodologies, such
ment of a special KPI, or missing data about a KPI should have a as AHP (Saaty, 1987), but aggregation may need an exact quantifi-
negative effect in performance level, but if the KPI is measured cation philosophy and a rational mathematical model to produce a
truly by the organization, then the level of the measured KPI sensitive integrated index from the data of several different KPIs.
should be taken into account in determination of HSE performance. Lack of an appropriate set of indicators quantification technique
This idea, which was adopted from Hopkins (2007), entered to our and measurement cohesion limits the use of an indicator system
framework of HSE KPIs monitoring (by defining MKF), described in (Hassan and Khan, 2012). Quantification of HSE performance using
the methodology. KPIs, is a ‘quality quantification’ process. Problems with quantifica-
tion of KPIs have been mentioned several times, and if a rational
3. Methodology method of quantification is not used, some people may think that
numbers do not contain any information on quality (Swuste et al.,
In designing a framework for measurement of HSE status or 2016).
performance, the first step is determination of a method for iden- Some researchers believe that applying a balance of quantita-
tification of indicators which can be indications of HSE perfor- tive and qualitative measurements is an aspect of performance
mance. Interestingly, indicators seem to be mainly based on measurement that should be consciously considered when choos-
experience from companies or on common sense (Swuste et al., ing how to evaluate health and safety processes. Used simultane-
2016). In the past works, literature review and expert opinion is ously, a mixed-methods approach could offer a more
usually used for identification and selection of KPIs (Podgorski, comprehensive viewpoint of health and safety performance
2015; Antao et al., 2016; Haas and Yorio, 2016; Wu et al., 2015; (Haas and Yorio, 2016).
Mohammadfam et al., 2012; Wurzelbacher and Jin, 2011; Hassan One of the greatest problems with indicators, as the basis of
and Khan, 2012). rewards and punishments, is that managers learn to manipulate
Use of proper KPIs is critical for effective measurement and them and so contribute to the false sense of security (Hale,
monitoring of HSE performance. We need to determine what we 2009). Therefore, development of a structured strong mathemati-
need indicators for, then we need to set out criteria for what makes cal framework for performance measurement can help us to solve
a good indicator for each of those purposes. By analogy with mea- this problem. The proposed framework in this paper will contain a
suring instruments, features that should be considered in selection combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to determine
of good indicators can include: validity, reliability, sensitivity, rep- HSE performance, so it has a semi-quantitative structure. The main
resentativeness, openness to bias, and cost-effectiveness (Hale, components of our proposed framework is shown in Fig. 1.
2009). As shown in Fig. 1, the framework is composed of three stages.
After determining the criteria for good indicators, the second This three stages with their related processes are described in the
stage is making decision about the number of indicators and how following.
to deal with them. In some references about 400 different indica-
tors are presented. In practice, the use of large number of indica- 3.1. STAGE I: Qualitative study of HSE system
tors has many disadvantages, and the senior management
usually needs a limited number of indicators, for example 5 The first step in design of a HSE performance measurement sys-
(Rogers and Pasman, 2013). Therefore we need to narrow the tem is creating an expert team with deep knowledge and experi-
extended list of the large number of identified indicators. In order ence in the field of HSE and KPIs. The first stage of the
to create a relatively small set of KPIs on the basis of a larger initial framework is expected to direct the expert team to gain a qualita-
set of candidate indicators, two basic approaches are possible: tive information about the organization environment and its HSE
selection and aggregation (Podgorski, 2015). system. In this stage a qualitative knowledge about the internal
Selection refers to choosing the most significant and represen- and external environment of the organization is gathered, and its
tative indicators out of the relatively large number of initially activities and processes/operations are recognized. Then a general

Please cite this article in press as: Amir-Heidari, P., et al. A new framework for HSE performance measurement and monitoring. Safety Sci. (2016), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.11.001
4 P. Amir-Heidari et al. / Safety Science xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Fig. 1. The main components of the proposed framework for integrated HSE performance measurement and monitoring.

information about the status of HSE system components (i.e. H, S, E is an empirical factor recommended based on our experience. We
and HSE MS) in the organization is gathered. In this stage the orga- will have a MSW for each group. KPIs with weights less than rele-
nizational structure of HSE system is identified and a qualitative vant MSWs will be dropped from their groups, and the final lead
assessment of its performance is performed. The feed to this stage and lag KPI sets will be determined. It should be noted that KPIs that
can be the recordings of the past HSE accidents and losses. Also, a are obligated by regulations or recommended by authorities can be
review of hazard identification and risk assessment results can be added to these groups as exceptions.
very helpful. If there is not enough data, it is highly recommended When the final KPIs of each of the two groups are determined,
that a baseline comprehensive risk assessment be done to find out once again the AHP method is used to weigh the KPIs by pairwise
the major risks and main HSE problems. In this stage a general pic- comparison. The lead and lag KPI groups should be weighed sepa-
ture of the organization and its HSE system is gained and its qual- rately, and the sum of weights in each group should be equal to 1.
itative HSE performance is assessed. With this qualitative The next step is determining KPIs scoring guide, or rating of each
knowledge and using a study of existing guidelines and documents KPI from 1 (very weak performance) to 5 (excellent performance),
about HSE KPIs, an extended list of KPIs that are applicable for the according to Likert scale (Hinkin, 1995). A minimum acceptable
organization, is developed. The KPIs in this list must be categorized level (MAL) is also determined for each KPI. A MAL value for a
based on time and scope factors, as described in Section 2. This list KPI is actually the lowest acceptable limit for the performance of
will be the feed for stage II. an organization in that KPI, which should be determined based
on stakeholders’ expectations. The MAL values will be used for
3.2. STAGE II: KPIs selection, rating and evaluation criteria evaluation of performance in each KPI. The rating of each KPI and
determination of its minimum acceptable level are the most criti-
In stage II, the leading and lagging KPIs are separated and cal processes in our proposed HSE performance measurement
arranged in two groups. In each group, the indicators of each scope framework. The final result of performance measurement will
(i.e. Occupational health (H), Occupational safety (S1), Process strongly depend on the results of this two processes, which are
safety (S2), Environment (E), and HSE MS) are again separated done qualitatively by an expert team. Therefore the knowledge
and arranged in five classes. From each class, the important KPIs and experience of the expert team members should not be under-
should be selected by an expert team. If the decision of team mem- estimated. By performing this processes, stage II or the selection
bers about important KPIs of each class does not converge, qualita- and rating of KPIs and determination of criteria for their evaluation
tive decision making methods like Delphi (Dalkey, 1969) can be (MALs) is completed. The results of this stage are the input for
employed. After selecting important KPIs, the KPIs of different stage III.
classes are mixed together in their relevant group (lead or lag).
Then the KPIs of each group are weighted and prioritized with 3.3. STAGE III: Quantification of HSE performance
AHP, separately. The team should decide on the number of KPIs
in each group and select the final lead KPI and lag KPI sets (a max- Based on the results of the two previous stages, in the stage III
imum number of 15 KPIs for each group is recommended). We sug- the required data for measuring each KPI are gathered and
gested a screening method for dropping the less important KPIs in recorded by companies or organizations during time. Here, two
each group by comparing them with minimum significant weigh important time intervals are defined. First, KPI measurement per-
(MSW) which is defined as below: iod, which indicates the time between two subsequent measure-
ments of KPIs. Second, index measurement period, which is the
1
MSW ¼ ð1Þ time interval at which the KPIs will be measured frequently to
2x
finally calculate the HSE index from them. It should be noted that
where 1 indicates that the KPIs are weighed between 0 and 1, and in this work we discriminated between ‘indicator’ and ‘index’ in
the sum of weights in each group should be equal to 1. The x is terminology, such that index is the result of aggregation of several
the number of indicators in the relevant group. The constant ‘‘2” indicators or KPIs.

Please cite this article in press as: Amir-Heidari, P., et al. A new framework for HSE performance measurement and monitoring. Safety Sci. (2016), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.11.001
 P. Amir-Heidari et al. / Safety Science xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 5

In this work the KPI measurement period and HSE index mea- In these equations, n is the index measurement period in years
surement period were defined 1 and 5 years, respectively. This (recommended to be 5), m is the number of selected lead KPIs and
means that the required data for calculation of the selected KPIs k is the number of selected lag KPIs. Wj is the weight of KPI number
should be gathered continually in order to determine their values j (0 < Wj < 1), determined in stage II. C1 is the MKF correction coef-
each year. By repeating this process, at the end of 5th year we will ficient, considered to adjust the effect of missing KPIs, C2 is DFF
have enough data to calculate 5-year HSE index and determine HSE correction coefficient, considered to adjust the effect of deviation
performance. The selection of 5 years for index calculation is frequency, and C3 is the DSF correction coefficient responsible for
because of the fact that based on experience, HSE performance correcting the effect of deviation magnitude.
usually cannot be determined in short time, but five year is a fea- For better understanding of Eqs. (8) or (9), MKF, DFF and DSF
sible period. Although, at the other hand, the annual measurement each may be considered as a matrix with n rows and m (or k)
of each KPI (with period of 1 year) is easily practical, disregard of columns.
the plant or organization size. Beside deviation, which is the ‘negative aspect of performance’,
When the 5-year data of KPIs were recorded, it is time to calcu- the reward factor (RF) was defined to reflect the ‘positive aspect of
late HSE index, which will reflect the HSE performance. For this performance’, for situations that the performance in one KPI is bet-
quantification process, a proper mathematical model will be ter than its determined MAL. RF was defined as below:
needed. In this work, by examining different models, a sensitive

and practical model was defined for this purpose. In our model four 0; if KPI value is less than MAL ð10Þ
RF ¼
factors are calculated from each KPI value, and they are combined KPI value=MAL; if KPI value is greater than MAL ð11Þ
to calculate the HSE index. The four factors are: Missing KPI Factor
(MKF), Deviation Frequency Factor (DFF), Deviation Severity Factor By averaging the RF values and correcting their effect, the pos-
(DSF), and Reward Factor (RF). These are described below. itive reward for lead and lag performance can be calculated using
The Missing KPI Factor (MKF) is defined to punish the organiza- Eqs. (12) and (13):
tions for situations where a KPI is not calculated in the planned Pn Pm
time, for any reason. It will be calculated as below: i¼1 j¼1 AF ij  C 4
Rewardlead ¼ ð12Þ

nm
0; if KPI is measured ð2Þ
MKF ¼ Pn Pk
1; if KPI is not measured ð3Þ
i¼1 j¼1 AF ij  C 4
Rewardleag ¼ ð13Þ
The Deviation frequency factor (DFF) is defined to verify
nk
whether the KPI status is acceptable or not. To determine it for a In these equations C4 is the RF correction factor considered to
measured KPI, the value of the KPI will be compared with its ‘‘min- adjust the effect of positive performance in the final performance
imum acceptable level (MAL)”, defined in stage II. The DFF will be: indices.

The recommended values for the constants of the described
0; if KPI value is greater than MAL ð4Þ
DFF ¼ mathematical model are: C1 = 14, C2 = 6, C3 = 5, and C4 = 2. Based
1; if KPI value is less than MAL ð5Þ on these values, the formulas for Lead HSE Performance Index
(HPIlead) and Lag HSE Performance Index (HPIlag) were developed
The sum of all DFF values in 5-year period will be an indication as:
of the frequency of MAL violation by KPIs. Further, by using KPI
weights defined in stage II, we will account for the different impor- HPIlead ¼ 22 þ Awardlead  DIlead ð14Þ
tance of violation of different KPIs, in the final equations (Eqs. (8)
and (9)). HPIlag ¼ 22 þ Awardlag  DIlag ð15Þ
The Deviation Severity Factor (DSF) is defined to determine the
magnitude of deviation from MAL, if the KPI value is less than MAL. These formulas are based on the renowned ‘‘reward and pun-
It will be calculated as below: ishment” policy (Nuttin and Greenwald, 1968), which considers

punishment for weak performance and reward for good perfor-
0; if KPI value is greater than MAL ð6Þ mance. With any probable change in model constants (C1–C4),
DSF ¼
MAL=KPI value; if KPI value is less than MAL ð7Þ these two formulas (Eqs. (14) and (15)) should be revised to change
their constant, 22.
These three factors (i.e. MKF, DFF and DSF) are the components From the results of Eqs. (14) and (15), the overall HSE Perfor-
of ‘deviation from ideal performance’. These will be combined to mance Index (HPI) can be calculated by combining the lead and
calculate the amount of deviation in lead and lag performance. lag performance indices, as below:
We defined Lead Deviation Index (DIlead) and Lag Deviation Index
 1=2
(DIlag) which should be calculated from lead and lag KPIs data,
HPI ¼ HPI2lead þ HPI2lag ð16Þ
respectively as below (formulas (8) and (9)):
0 P P !2 Pn Pm !2
n m In Eqs. (8), (9) and (16), we used an analogy with Pythagoras’
j¼1 ðMKF ij  C 1 Þ j¼1 DFF ij  wj  m  C 2
DIlead ¼ @
i¼1 i¼1
þ Pn Pm theorem (Collignon, 1906) in vector algebra, which is used for cal-
ðn  mÞ ðn  mÞ  i¼1 j¼1 ðMKF ij Þ
culation of magnitude of vectors from their components. In prac-
Pn Pm   !2 11=2 tice, with the assigned constants (C1 = 14, C2 = 6, C3 = 5, and
i¼1 j¼1 DSF ij  C 3 A
þ P P ð8Þ C4 = 2) and by a qualitative survey, this model indicated acceptable
ðn  mÞ  ni¼1 m j¼1 ðMKF ij Þ sensitivity to changes in KPI values, in practice. It is clear that the
0 P P  sensitivity of this model is dependent on the values of constants
n k ! 2 Pn Pk !2
MKF ij  C 1 j¼1 DFF ij  wj  k  C 2 used in the model.
DIlag ¼ @
i¼1 j¼1 i¼1
þ Pn Pk
ðn  kÞ ðn  kÞ  i¼1 j¼1 ðMKF ij Þ It should be noted that the constant values in the above formu-
las all have been determined empirically based on our team expe-
Pn Pk !2 11=2
j¼1 ðDSF ij  C 3 Þ
rience and by ‘trial and error’ process. After developing a
þ
i¼1
Pn Pk A ð9Þ spreadsheet program (Appendix A), the model was examined with
ðn  kÞ  i¼1 j¼1 ðMKF ij Þ
different constants for different hypothetical KPI sets. Finally the

Please cite this article in press as: Amir-Heidari, P., et al. A new framework for HSE performance measurement and monitoring. Safety Sci. (2016), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.11.001
6 P. Amir-Heidari et al. / Safety Science xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

best set of constants have been selected to balance the effect of dif- gested HSE KPIs for Iranian drilling industry was created. This list
ferent factors (MKF, DFF, DSF and RF). was the output of stage I of the proposed framework. In stage II,
Final criteria for evaluation of HPIlead, HPIlag and (HPI) was the final selection of KPIs and their weighing was performed by
determined qualitatively by expert opinion. This guideline is pro- AHP. The rating tables or scoring guide tables and MAL values were
vided in Table 2. The boundaries in this table were defined by cal- also determined based on our expert team opinion. The selected
culating the performance indexes for different hypothetical KPI lead and lag KPIs are listed in Table 4 and Table 5, respectively.
sets and comparing the result with our expert team judgment. This These KPIs, weights, and MALs are specific to this case study. After
criteria is used to judge about the performance, after quantification stage I and II, the next stage (stage III) was related to index calcu-
process. This is like a fuzzification process, followed by defuzzifica- lation process which will be described in the following.
tions and quantifications in the previous steps, which will help the Our proposed framework can be used in both macro level (such
user to comprehend the meaning of the final result. It is clear that as the entire Iranian drilling industry) and micro level (such as an
in the case of any change in model parameters or constants, Table 2 especial drilling company). We used it, with the KPIs defined in
may need revision. Table 4 and Table 5, for measuring and comparing the HSE perfor-
In our framework the MALs are expected to be updated to be mance of 3 different drilling contractors in Iran. A written guide-
stricter over time, according to continual improvement policy of line was prepared and provided for the companies, and they
organizations, but for effective comparisons and benchmarks, same were asked to score the defined KPIs using the scoring guide tables,
KPIs with same weights and MALs should be used. for five years.
The proposed model in this work was developed for measuring For easy and fast computation of HSE index a spread sheet pro-
the performance of integrated HSE system which is managed under gram was developed for the model, which can be accessed at
an HSE MS. It can be easily modified to be used for a single special Appendix A. In this program, the users can change the model con-
scope, such as process safety, but attention is needed to decide on stants (C1, C2, C3 and C4 values), KPI weights, and MAL values to use
the constants of the model and the final criteria table. it for their special applications.
The five-year KPI data of the three drilling companies were
entered to our designed program (Appendix A) to calculate the
4. Case study HSE Indexes. The results are presented and discussed in Section 5.

The proposed framework was used for measurement of HSE

5. Results and discussion
performance, as a part of an accident reduction project, in Iranian
oil and gas drilling industry (Amir-Heidari, 2014). The flowchart
In the first part of this section, the result of the case study is pre-
of steps for calculating HSE index using the proposed methodology
sented. In the second part, the unique properties of the proposed
is indicated in Fig. 2. The process and general results of the case
HSE performance measurement framework are discussed.
study are described in this section, and the detailed results are dis-
cussed in Section 5.
In order to find important HSE KPIs, after a qualitative investi- 5.1. The case study results
gation of drilling industry of Iran and its HSE system, the first step
was performing a comprehensive baseline risk assessment, which Based on the data gathered annually from the three drilling
was a part of an extended accident reduction project whose result companies in five years, using 12 lead KPIs (m = 12) and 8 lag KPIs
was released before by the authors (Amir-Heidari et al., 2016). The (k = 8), defined in Section 4, the 5-year performances (n = 5) of
next main activity was identification and review of the interna- these companies were computed and compared using the pro-
tional documents and guidelines about HSE KPIs. Comprehensive posed model (with C1 = 14, C2 = 6, C3 = 5, and C4 = 2). The results
baseline risk assessment, and identification of the related docu- are listed in Table 6.
ments and guidelines are the two important elements of stage I As shown in Table 6, both lead and lag index of company C (off-
of our proposed framework, described in the methodology. shore drilling company) has been considerably better than compa-
For determining Lag KPIs in the case study, credible documents nies A and B (onshore drilling companies). The overall index of
were used in order to select some common KPIs to make it possible company C is 28.48, which according to Table 2 indicates a ‘‘Good”
to compare the HSE performance of Iranian drilling industry with HSE performance. The overall indexes of companies A and B are
that of other countries, in future. To determine Lead KPIs, in addi- 21.41 and 20.49, respectively, which fall in ‘‘Poor” region, but these
tion to credible documents, the results of the comprehensive base- companies need only a little improvement to reach to ‘‘Relatively
line risk assessment (Amir-Heidari et al., 2016) were used. The Good” performance (above 22).
used documents and references are listed in Table 3. With the same data from the three companies, the 1-year per-
Based on the review of credible documents and study of the formance (n = 1) of them in 5 years was computed with the same
results of the baseline risk assessment, an extended list of sug- model. The results are listed in Table 7.

Table 2
The guideline for evaluation of performance indices (for C1 = 14, C2 = 6, C3 = 5, and C4 = 2).

Very poor Poor Relatively good Good Excellent

HPIlead <10 ≥ 10 & <15 ≥ 15 & <20 ≥ 20 & <23 ≥ 23

HPIlag <10 ≥ 10 & <15 ≥ 15 & <20 ≥ 20 & <23 ≥ 23

HPI <15 ≥ 15 & <22 ≥ 22 & <28 ≥ 28 & <33 ≥ 33

Please cite this article in press as: Amir-Heidari, P., et al. A new framework for HSE performance measurement and monitoring. Safety Sci. (2016), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.11.001
 P. Amir-Heidari et al. / Safety Science xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 7

Fig. 2. The flowchart of steps for measuring HSE performance.

Table 3
Documents and references reviewed for determining KPIs (Amir-Heidari, 2014).

No. Name of document Organization Related area Reference

1 OGP safety performance indicators-2010 data OGP Personal OGP (2011a)
safety
2 OGP recommended practice on key performance indicators OGP Process safety OGP (2011b)
3 OGP health performance indicators, a guide for the oil and gas industry OGP Health OGP (2007)
4 OGP health and safety performance indicators-2011 date, health performance indicators OGP Health OGP (2012)
5 API Recommended Practice No. 754 (API RP 754): Process safety performance indicators for the refining and API Process safety API (2010)
petrochemical industries
6 OSHA recordkeeping handbook (OSHA 3245-09R) OSHA Safety and OSHA (2005)
health
7 Safety performance indicators related to chemical accident prevention, preparedness and response, guidance OECD Safety OECD (2008)
for industry
8 Process safety leading and lagging metrics CCPS Process safety CCPS (2011)
9 Process safety leading indicators industry survey CCPS Process safety CCPS (2013)
10 Guidance notes on safety culture and leading indicators of safety ABS Safety ABS (2012)
11 International Sustainability Rating System (ISRS) DNV Safety DNV (2009)

However the use of 5-year performance is recommended for Fig. 3. From this diagram, it is clear that in 5 years the overall
comparison of performances of different companies, the 1-year performance of company C fluctuated between about 25 and 31.
performance may be needed for continual performance monitoring However the 5-year overall performance of this company has been
in a company or organization. For example, the trend diagram of ‘‘Good” (over 28), in years 1 and 2, the 1-year performances have
1-year HSE performance indices for company C is shown in been in ‘‘Relatively Good” region (below 28). The lowest overall

Please cite this article in press as: Amir-Heidari, P., et al. A new framework for HSE performance measurement and monitoring. Safety Sci. (2016), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.11.001
8 P. Amir-Heidari et al. / Safety Science xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Table 4
The selected HSE Lead KPIs for Iranian drilling industry (Amir-Heidari, 2014).

No. Indicator Category Weight MAL

1 Costs assigned to HSE for preventing accidents (per each worker per year, and with respect to total expense) HSE MS 0.13 3
2 Percentage of workers who are not qualified or competent for assigned duties HSE MS 0.11 3
3 Percentage of completion of activities related to risk assessment and control in the planned times HSE MS 0.1 4
4 Number of reported near misses (per year) HSE MS 0.09 4
5 Percentage of existing of exact, applicable and updated work procedures for doing the works in a standard way HSE MS 0.08 3
6 Frequency of audits and inspections related to HSE management system HSE MS 0.05 5
7 Percentage of completion of activities related to technical inspection and quality assurance in determined times Process safety 0.1 4
8 Percentage of costs/funds assigned to environmental risk management (per year with respect to the total expense) Environment 0.05 3
9 Amount of costs/funds assigned to personnel health risk management (per each worker per year, and with respect to Health 0.05 4
total expense)
10 Percentage of works which are performed under supervision of experienced and skilled supervisors Personal safety 0.07 3
11 Percentage of hot and cold works which are performed under PTWS (permit to work system) Personal/process 0.08 4
Safety
12 Number of red risks (in risk profile) HSE MS 0.09 4

Table 5
The selected HSE Lag KPIs for Iranian drilling industry (Amir-Heidari, 2014).

No. Indicator Category Weight MAL

1 Rate of occupational accidents which lead to fatality (number per 200,000 man-hours) Personal safety 0.2 4
2 Rate of recordable occupational accidents (number per 200,000 man-hours) Personal safety 0.13 4
3 Frequency of process accidents which lead to a hazardous material release Process safety 0.25 4
4 Amount of waste discharged to environment (per each 100 m of drilling) Environment 0.08 3
5 Amount of oil spill/discharge to environment (per each 100 m of drilling) Environment 0.08 3
6 Amount of greenhouse gas release to atmosphere (per each 100 m of drilling) Environment 0.06 3
7 Rate of occupational illness/health problem reports (number per 200,000 man-hours) Health 0.1 4
8 Amount of legal fines/costs related to HSE (per each 100 m of drilling) HSE MS 0.1 3

Table 6
The 5-year HSE Performance of the three companies under study.

Company Sector Activity HPIlead HPIlag HPI

Company A Private Onshore 14.75 15.52 21.41

Company B Public Onshore 13.88 15.07 20.49

Company C Public Offshore 20.51 19.76 28.48

index of this company in the 5 years occurred in year 2, because of 1. Comprehensive structure: the proposed methodology covers
a decrease in lag performance index. The diagram indicates that, all aspects of HSE system performance. In this methodology,
disregard of year 2, this company have had a continual improve- both lead and lag KPIs of five components of HSE system (H,
ment in HSE performance, in the 5 years of the study. S1, S2, E, and HSE MS) are measured. Besides, the framework
Using the program developed for our proposed model (Appen- covers the whole range of performance measurement pro-
dix A), the index calculation period can be easily changed (for cess, from 0 (identification of KPIs) to 100 (evaluation of
example, to 2 or 3 years) to survey similar results. The model aggregated index).
parameters can be also modified by professional users, for opti- 2. General application: The proposed framework can be
mization and development purposes. In the program, the users easily used in any kind of organization or company,
can define up to 20 lead KPIs and 20 lag KPIs, each with its arbi- regardless of its size, structure and activity. If same KPIs
trary weight and MAL. Therefore the model has the flexibility to with same parameters are used, the performances can be
be easily customized, and the users will not have any mathemati- compared.
cal or time concern for their special uses. An example of using the 3. Versatility: In measuring HSE performance, there may be
designed program with the input data of company C (of the case a need to measure the performance in a special field,
study) is presented in Appendix A. such as personal safety. Similarly, an organization may
want to compare the performance of different elements
5.2. Features of the proposed framework (human factor, equipment, management, etc.), separately.
At the other hand, it may be needed to measure the
In this part, some special characteristics of the new proposed performance of some wider systems, like integrate man-
framework are discussed. According to the study of different exist- agement system (IMS). The proposed framework can
ing methodologies, the special features of our proposed methodol- easily be modified for such narrow or extended
ogy are summarized in 12 items: applications.

Please cite this article in press as: Amir-Heidari, P., et al. A new framework for HSE performance measurement and monitoring. Safety Sci. (2016), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.11.001
 P. Amir-Heidari et al. / Safety Science xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 9

Table 7
The trend of 1-year HSE indexes for the companies under study in 5 years.

Index Company Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

HPIlead Company A 11.85 13.62 13.90 16.47 17.47

Company B 12.05 12.86 13.13 15.38 15.59

Company C 17.83 19.17 20.91 21.84 22.31

HPIlag Company A 16.70 16.27 14.90 14.60 14.90

Company B 15.80 14.59 14.15 16.05 14.59

Company C 18.44 16.34 20.48 21.84 21.69

HPI Company A 20.48 21.22 20.38 22.02 22.96

Company B 19.88 19.45 19.30 22.23 21.35

Company C 25.64 25.19 29.27 30.89 31.12

35 The model enforces continual measurement of all KPIs, and

30 punishes the user for possible negligence. A correction coef-
25 ficient (C1) is also defined to adjust MKF effect.
7. Strong philosophy: In addition to MKF, two of the other ele-
20
Index

ments of the proposed model are DFF and DSF. Using these
15
two elements the model computes the deviation frequency
10 and deviation severity, for the measured KPIs. If we consider
5 ‘‘deviation of a KPI from its MAL” as a hazard, so a combina-
0 tion of deviation frequency and severity may be an indica-
1 2 3 4 5 6
Year tion of the deviation risk. Therefore, in its base, the model
uses a strong philosophy, consistent with risk concept. Other
LEAD INDEX LAG INDEX Overall Index
than the three discussed factors which are related to nega-
Fig. 3. The trend of HSE performance indices in company C. tive performance (or deviation), the model uses a reward
factor (RF) to account for the cases that the performance in
one KPI is over MAL. Altogether, this model is based on the
4. Long-period/high-frequency model: In the proposed renowned ‘reward and punishment’ policy.
methodology, the long-term performance index (e.g. 5-year 8. Simple structure: The proposed model has a simple and
index) can be calculated from the values of different KPIs straightforward process to calculate performance indices,
recorded more frequently (e.g. each 1 year). Therefore, the and its output is an aggregated single number which can
phrase ‘long-period’ is related to index calculation process, be used for effective communication with non-expert per-
and ‘high-frequency’ is related to KPIs scoring process. This sonnel, stakeholders, public and senior management. The
is important because in HSE subject, the KPIs need to be framework combines simple qualitative and quantitative
recorded continually in short-terms, but the performance processes for quality measurement, and it can easily be
can be judged in relatively long terms. It should be learnt and used by HSE staff.
noted that although the model is designed to measure HSE 9. Lead/lag/overall performance: In the proposed framework,
performance in long-term (e.g. for 5 years), it has no the lead and lag performance are calculated and evaluated,
limitation to calculate the performance in short-terms separately. Then, they are combined to compute the overall
(e.g. for 1 year). HSE performance index. Finally, the overall performance can
5. Risk-related: The proposed model uses the results of per- be evaluated using the determined criteria or guide table.
formed risk assessments, and in the case of lack of proper 10. Standardizable structure: The general proposed framework
risk assessments in past, it suggests the user to perform a can be considered as a basic for publishing an international
comprehensive baseline risk assessment, whose results can ISO standard for HSE performance measurement, and even
be helpful in determination of KPIs. At the other hand, as for other quality measurement purposes. The continual
indicated in the case study, the result of the baseline risk improvement which is the heart of ISO management system
assessment (number of red risks) is used as a lead KPI, or standards (e.g. ISO 14001 and ISO 9001), can be achieved via
as an ‘input’ to determine the HSE performance status. this framework by continual measurement of performance,
6. Self-control: The proposed mathematical model contains a and update of MAL values, when needed.
MKF parameter, which is defined to lower the performance 11. Proper for monitoring: for continual improvement, the mea-
index for the cases that a KPI is not measured for any reason. surement of performance should be done continually. The
Therefore, to get best marks, all KPIs should be measured. continual measurement of performance with any defined

Please cite this article in press as: Amir-Heidari, P., et al. A new framework for HSE performance measurement and monitoring. Safety Sci. (2016), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.11.001
10 P. Amir-Heidari et al. / Safety Science xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

period (1 year, 2 years, 3 years, etc.) is easily possible by our References

simple framework; it will need a reasonable amount of time
and effort for this purpose. ABS (American Bureau of Shipping), 2012. Guidance Notes on Safety Culture and
Leading Indicators of Safety. American Bureau of Shipping, USA.
12. Sensitive: The defined mathematical formulation which is Amir-Heidari, P., 2014. Developing a Risk-based Strategy to Reduce Accidents and
analogous to vector magnitude relation in vector algebra, Losses in Iranian Drilling Industry [in Persian] MSc Thesis. HSE Engineering
has an acceptable sensitivity with respect to input KPI val- Group, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.
Amir-Heidari, P., Maknoon, R., Taheri, B., Bazyari, M., 2016. Identification of
ues. The four coefficients of the model can be used to cus- Strategies to Reduce Accidents and Losses in Drilling Industry by
tomize and adjust the sensitivity of it. Beside this, the Comprehensive HSE Risk Assessment—a case study in Iranian Drilling
model is not in nature sensitive to the number of defined Industry. J. Loss Prevent. Process Indust.
Antao, P., Calderon, M., Puig, M., Michail, A., Wooldridge, C., Darbra, R.M., 2016.
KPIs and the index calculation period. This is a very useful
Identification of occupational health, safety, security (OHSS) and environmental
feature of the model and will increase its flexibility to be performance indicators in port areas. Safety Sci. 85, 266–275. http://dx.doi.org/
customized according to the needs of different users. 10.1016/j.ssci.2015.12.031.
API (American Petroleum Institute), 2010. API Recommended Practice No. 754 (API
RP 754): Process safety performance indicators for the refining and
petrochemical industries. American Petroleum Institute, USA.
6. Conclusion
Bowlin, W.F., 1998. Measuring performance: an introduction to Data Envelopment
Analysis (DEA). J. Cost Anal. 15 (2), 3–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
In this work a logical selection and aggregation methodology 08823871.1998.10462318.
was developed for generating a single number (overall index) Bowling, A., 1997. Measuring Health: A Review of Quality of Life Measurement
Scale. Open University Press, Buckingham.
reflecting the HSE performance. This is very helpful for communi- CCPS (Center for Chemical Process Safety), 2011. Process Safety Leading and Lagging
cating the performance status with non-expert personnel, stake- Metrics. Center for Chemical Process Safety, USA.
holders, senior management and public. Such simple and logical CCPS (Center for Chemical Process Safety), 2013. Process Safety Leading Indicators
Industry Survey. Center for Chemical Process Safety, USA.
structure with a strong philosophical and mathematical base does Chong, H.G., 2008. Measuring performance of small-and-medium sized enterprises:
not exist in the literature. Therefore our general three-stage inno- the grounded theory approach. J. Business Public Affairs 2 (1), 1–10.
vative framework which is based on ‘reward and punishment’ pol- Collignon, M.E., 1906. Pythagoras Theorem. Proc. Edinburgh Math. Soc. 25, 91–94.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0013091500033605.
icy can be used by any kind of organization or company for Dalkey, N., 1969. An experimental study of group opinion: the Delphi
measuring qualitative performances, including HSE performance. method. Futures 1 (5), 408–426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(69)
In the past works, sometimes radar diagrams were used for final 80025-X.
DNV (Det Norske Veritas), 2009. International Sustainability Rating System (ISRS),
presentation of HSE performance status (Juglaret et al., 2011). Use eighth ed., USA.
of radar diagrams is useful for short graphical presentation, but Donald, B., Brent, J., Molly Joel, C., 2003. Connection between quality measurement
using them, the result or performance status cannot be easily com- and improvement. Medical Care 41 (1), I-30–I-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/
00005650-200301001-00004.
prehend by everyone, and they are not suitable for continual per-
Fitzpatrick, R., Fletcher, A., Gore, S., Jones, D., Spiegelhalter, D., Cox, D., 1992. Quality
formance monitoring and performance comparison. Our of life measures in health care, I: applications and issues in assessment. BMJ
framework is a solution to such weaknesses. 305, 1074–1077 (PMCID: PMC1883623).
In the developed framework, the aggregation result of stage III Guillemin, F., Bombardier, C., Beaton, D., 1993. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-
related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J.
(lead, lag and overall indices) is suitable for general communica- Clin. Epidemiol. 46 (12), 1417–1432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(93)
tion, although for professional purposes, the HSE management in 90142-N.
each organizations should scrutinize the detailed results of KPIs Haas, E.J., Yorio, P., 2016. Exploring the state of health and safety management
system performance measurement in mining organizations. Safety Sci. 83, 48–
evaluation process in stage II, to exactly discover the weaknesses 58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.11.009.
and to plan for improvement. Hale, A., 2009. Why safety performance indicators? Safety Sci. 47 (4), 479–480.
Beside creation of a good performance monitoring system using http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2008.07.018.
Hassan, J., Khan, F., 2012. Risk-based asset integrity indicators. J. Loss Prevent.
the proposed framework, it is essential that organizations develop Process Indust. 25, 544–554. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2011.12.011.
a good documentation system for it. Therefore, all of the activities Hawksley, J.L., 1999. Developing a major accident prevention policy. J. Hazard.
from stage I to III should be properly documented such that the Mater. 65, 109–121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3894(98)00258-1.
Hendershot, D., 2007. Measuring process safety performance. J. Chem. Health Safety
processes can be audited by internal and external auditors. 47–48, 2007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2007.07.009.
The results of the performed case study (in drilling industry) Hinkin, T.R., 1995. A review of scale development practices in the study of
indicated that the developed framework is applicable in industry, organizations. J. Manage. 21 (5), 967–988. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0149-2063
(95)90050-0.
but each company may need about 2–3 years to create a system
Hopkins, A., 2007. Thinking About Process Safety Indicators. Working Paper
for effective performance measurement and monitoring. To dis- 53. National Research Centre for OHS Regulation, Australian National
cover and solve the weaknesses, the developed framework needs University.
to be used and tested in other industries and organizations. The ISO 31000, 2009. Risk Management-Principles and Guidelines (ISO 31000:2009).
International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
optimization and development of the mathematical formulations, Juglaret, F., Rallo, J., Textoris, R., Guarnieri, F., Garbolino, E., 2011. New Balanced
and the quantitative sensitivity analysis of the model can be fol- Scorecard leading indicators to monitor performance variability in OHS
lowed in future research. management systems. In: Proceedings of the fourth Resilience Engineering
Symposium, pp. 121–127.
The proposed methodology in this work has a new attitude for Kennerley, M., Neely, A., 2003. Measuring performance in a changing business
involving ‘risk assessment’ in performance measurement. Further- environment. Int. J. Operat. Prod. Manage. 23 (2), 213–229. http://dx.doi.org/
more, the developed framework has 12 special characteristics that 10.1108/01443570310458465.
Mant, J., 2001. Process versus outcome indicators in the assessment of quality of
were described in detail in the previous section. This characteris- health care. Int. J. Quality Health Care 13 (6), 475–480 (PMID: 11769750).
tics make it possible to use the developed framework as a base McAlexander, J.H., Kaldenberg, D.O., Koenig, H.F., 1994. Service quality
for developing an international ISO standard for performance measurement. J. Health Care Market. 14 (3), 34–40 (PMID: 10138734).
McGlynn, E.A., Asch, S.M., Adams, J., Keesey, J., Hicks, J., Cristofaro, A.D., Kerr, E.A.,
measurement. 2003. The quality of health care delivered to adults in United States. New Engl. J.
Med. 348, 2635–2645. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa022615.
Mohammadfam, I., Mahmoudi, S., Kianfar, A., 2012. Development of the health,
Appendix A. Supplementary material safety and environment excellence instrument: a HSE-MS performance
measurement tool. Proc. Eng. 45, 194–198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
proeng.2012.08.142.
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in Nuttin, J., Greenwald, A.G., 1968. Reward and Punishment in Human Learning:
the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.11.001. Elements of Behavior Theory. Elsevier Inc. (ISBN: 978-1-4831-9723-4).

Please cite this article in press as: Amir-Heidari, P., et al. A new framework for HSE performance measurement and monitoring. Safety Sci. (2016), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.11.001
 P. Amir-Heidari et al. / Safety Science xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 11

OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), 2008. Safety Saaty, R.W., 1987. The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used.
Performance Indicators Related to Chemical Accident Prevention, Preparedness Math. Model. 9 (3–5), 161–176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0270-0255(87)
and Response, Guidance for Industry. Organization for Economic Cooperation 90473-8.
and Development, Paris. Silvestro, R., Johnston, R., Fitzgerald, L., Voss, C., 1990. Quality measurement in
OGP (Oil and Gas Producers), 2007. OGP health performance indicators, a guide for service industries. Int. J. Service Indust. Manage. 1 (2), 54–66. http://dx.doi.org/
the oil and gas industry, Report No. 393. Oil and Gas Producers, UK. 10.1108/EUM0000000002803.
OGP (Oil and Gas Producers), 2011a. OGP safety performance indicators-2010 data, Swuste, P., Theunissen, J., Schmitz, P., Reniers, G., Blokland, P., 2016. Process safety
Report No. 455. Oil and Gas Producers, UK. indicators, a review of literature. J. Loss Prevent. Process Indust. 40, 162–173.
OGP (Oil and Gas Producers), 2011b. OGP recommended practice on key http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2015.12.020.
performance indicators, Report No. 456. Oil and Gas Producers, UK. Wu, X., Liu, Q., Zhang, L., Skibniewski, M.J., Wang, Y., 2015. Prospective safety
OGP (Oil and Gas Producers), 2012. OGP health and safety performance indicators- performance evaluation on construction sites. Acc. Anal. Prevent. 78, 58–72.
2011 date, health performance indicators, Report No. 2011h. Oil and Gas http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.02.003.
Producers, UK. Wurzelbacher, S., Jin, Y., 2011. A framework for evaluating OSH program
OSHA (US Occupational Safety and Health Administration), 2005. OSHA effectiveness using leading and trailing metrics. J. Safety Res. 42 (3), 199–207.
Recordkeeping Handbook (OSHA 3245-09R). US Occupational Safety and http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2011.04.001.
Health Administration, USA.
Panzer, R.J., Gitomer, R.S., Greens, W.H., Webster, P.R., Landry, K.R., Riccobono, C.A.,
Glossary of abbreviations
2013. Increasing demands for quality measurement. JAMA 310 (18), 1971–
1980. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.282047. RF: Reward Factor
Parasuramann, A., Berry, L.L., Zeithaml, V.A., 1993. More on improving service DFF: Deviation Frequency Factor
quality measurement. J. Retailing 69 (1), 140–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ DIlag: Lag Deviation Index
S0022-4359(05)80007-7. DIlead: Lead Deviation Index
Philip, G., Hazlett, S., 1997. The measurement of service quality: a new P-C-P DSF: Deviation Severity Factor
attributes model. Int. J. Quality Reliab. Manage. 14 (3), 260–286. http://dx.doi. HPI: HSE Performance Indicator
org/10.1108/02656719710165482. HPIlag: Lag HSE Performance Indicator
Podgorski, D., 2015. Measuring operational performance of OSH management HPIlead: Lead HSE Performance Indicator
system – a demonstration of AHP-based selection of leading key performance MAL: Minimum Acceptable Level
indicators. Safety Sci. 73, 146–166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2014.11.018. MKF: Missing KPI Factor
Rogers, W., Pasman, H., 2013. How can we use the information provided by process
MSW: Minimum Significant Weight
safety performance indicators? Possibilities and limitations. J. Loss Prevent.
Process Indust. 30, 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2013.06.001.

Please cite this article in press as: Amir-Heidari, P., et al. A new framework for HSE performance measurement and monitoring. Safety Sci. (2016), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.11.001