What is it for?
The dashboard organizes relevant health and safety information to support decision-making. Alerts about critical controls should reach those who can correct the issue, without necessarily waiting for the next periodic meeting. It can be used in operational meetings, for monitoring a facility, or in management reviews. Its design should answer the questions of its users and support the decisions they can make with that information.
A set of charts alone does not constitute a monitoring system. It must allow for the identification of problems, the prioritization of resources, and the verification of the effect of measures. Its usefulness diminishes when many figures are included without explaining their meaning or when the dashboard merely presents results that no one can act upon.
Starting from objectives and risks
The selection process begins with occupational health and safety (OSH) objectives and the relevant risks of the activity. An organization with high-potential-for-harm jobs needs to understand how its critical controls work, in addition to tracking injuries. Another may require specific monitoring of exposures, ergonomics, or coverage of measures across geographically dispersed sites.
Each question should be translated into observable information. Knowing whether inspections are carried out is different from knowing whether serious findings are corrected promptly and effectively. The dashboard can show both dimensions, but it should avoid presenting administrative activity as automatic proof that the risk has been reduced.
Combine different indicators
Leading and lagging indicators offer complementary perspectives. The former can show actions and conditions that precede harm; the latter describe events or consequences that have already occurred. Neither group should be interpreted in isolation or used as a substitute for risk assessment.
It is useful to combine exposure, control operation, implementation of preventive measures, and results. For example, the percentage of inspections performed can be accompanied by detected defects and their verified correction. Reading this data together allows one to distinguish between a lack of inspection, equipment problems, and response delays, which require different solutions.
Define data and calculation
Each indicator needs a name, purpose, formula, source, period, and responsible party. Inclusions and exclusions must be specified, especially when combining centers, staff, and contractors. Data quality determines whether a comparison represents real differences or differences in recording and coverage.
Rates should use denominators consistent with the events being counted. It is also advisable to indicate when data is provisional, records are missing, or the definition has changed. A figure without context can convey a misleading sense of accuracy. Maintaining a single indicator sheet prevents each meeting from using different criteria to interpret the same result.
Designing a useful reading
The design should facilitate comparison, trend identification, and the detection of exceptions. It is advisable to use understandable scales, consistent time periods, and clear labels. Colors can aid readability, but they should not be the sole means of communicating a status. Each alert requires an explanation that clarifies what has been observed and the appropriate action.
Thresholds must be justified by objectives, requirements, or preventive criteria. Not all indicators lend themselves to a simple traffic light system. An increase in reported incidents may reflect improved reporting, while a decrease may mask a lack of reporting. The dashboard should allow for comparison of these changes with workplace observations and other sources of information.
Connect the panel with decisions
Management reviews and follow-up meetings should use the dashboard to assign actions. It’s advisable to record what decision is made, who implements it, and when it will be reviewed. If an indicator worsens for months without a response, the problem is no longer solely related to the information presented.
Those in charge need the ability to modify conditions, resources, or processes. Information can be broken down by department or activity when it helps to inform action, while maintaining safeguards for personal data. The goal is to identify areas for improvement, avoiding simplistic classifications that reward low reporting or penalize those who report problems transparently.
Practical example
In a fictitious company, the dashboard shows a high percentage of completed inspections. However, findings regarding blocked access points are recurring. By incorporating the age of open actions and closure verification, it is observed that many actions were considered complete after sending a notification, without checking the outcome.
The organization changes its closure criteria and assigns individuals responsible for preparing the spaces. Monitoring includes tracking recurring findings and direct observation. Improvement is verified when conditions are maintained, not when the indicator’s color changes due to more reports or a modified due date.
Review your own dashboard
Indicators should be reviewed when objectives, risks , or processes change. Metrics that don’t contribute to decision-making should be removed, and those that incentivize inappropriate behavior should be corrected. It should also be verified that the effort invested in data collection is proportionate to its preventive value.
Predictive analytics can complement the dashboard, provided its estimates are identified as such and validated. The dashboard should distinguish between observed facts, calculations, and hypotheses. Its best outcome is a verifiable sequence of information, decision, preventive measure, and improvement of working conditions.
