Directives Matter

If metrics that lie kill people, and proof of due diligence is considered a requirement of modern business, directives are what save lives and prove diligence. And yet, our research taught us that perhaps traditional safety exists in such an operational vacuum as to not require even this basic communication process to function.

In traditional safety, directives are what are commonly called “corrective actions.” Corrective actions provide a fix for a problem where there is risk of loss. One would think that given the possible consequences, including serious harm and personal liability, this element of a safety program would garner serious attention. However, our research demonstrated – and continues to demonstrate – that corrective actions are often never identified as a part of an accident investigation; and when they are identified the corrective action is a mere observation or re-statement of the problem, not a call to any action, corrective or otherwise.

Because a corrective action is critical to fix problems, one generally hopes it meets a few minimum standards of communication. These are: it needs to actually describe the expected action; it needs to indicate who is responsible for completing the action; and it needs to indicate a due date for completion. To engage any level of acceptable proof of due diligence, it also needs to actually be confirmed as complete at some point, preferably in the same decade it is initiated. Also handy would be to understand the context for the corrective action, which is basically an answer to the question as to what triggered this action.

Sampling real data provides some unfortunate insight about how corrective actions are viewed:

Total Directives	Action Indicated	Accountable Person Indicated	Due Date Indicated	Completed	Confirmed
3,868	2,216	2,452	1,837	1,377	1,048
100%	57.3%	63.4%	47.5%	35.6%	27.1%

Based upon those numbers, drawn from actual client sources, it is clear how relevant traditional safety feels directives are. When only 57.3% of all “actions” don’t contain actions, or any text at all to describe their purpose; when merely 63.4% have been assigned to an accountable person; and when less than half have a due date indicated (47.5%), one has to question the purpose of the effort. Even when making the effort, when only 35.6% are ever indicated as completed, and a mere 27.1% are ever confirmed, where is the proof of due diligence?

These numbers prove that corrective actions are paperwork efforts more than real, and that evidently no follow-through is necessary. They also indicate how the communication loop is failing completely, with no accountability at all.

Whether you call them corrective actions or the more appropriate name of directives, it is fairly certain an executive who saw numbers this abysmal would have a few question about why they are even created, and a few serious concerns about whether detected problems are ever corrected at all.