Alan Quilley is asking for safety professionals to give some feedback on how the zero harm topic failed as a measurement!!! Then he says we must ditch the zero measure to focus on what he says are "real measurement of the existence of safety production"...what, are we to measure the success or failure of training etc !!! Zero harm is not a measure...and any 'real measurement' is all based around the zero harm goal...risk management is all about zero harm...all safety is about zero harm. Shame Alan thinks he is to excellent to face some hard question
Its a shame these so called safety experts don't believe in zero harm as a goal (the only see it as number (naive), then rant and rave how zero is not possible---yet advertise that using their excellent safety systems can control ALL risk).. I wonder if a sports team has the goal of winning? (its the same thing!). Zero is about doing what we can in every area of safety to eliminate risk...(but you would have to understand about risk to understand my point there). I.e. if we can eliminate 'a' risk (singular - that it seems no-one gets), then we eliminate the harm (zero harm)...if we swim with sharks in a shark proof cage..then we have got zero harm...where did the shark cage come from...from zero harm philosophy... Some of my points on ZERO HARM logic. 1) If you don't believe in zero harm, you cannot believe in elimination of risk (as used in Hierarchy of controls) 2) Zero Harm is a goal, it's not a destination but an activity 3) People say it is impossible to have zero harm as a complete, then they must also not be able to believe in love, trust and goodness and none of these exits either in a complete. 4) Zero harm occurs often when work is done without harm. 5) All safety in some way is really about no harm!
