In this episode of the Safety by Design, Nick sits down with Pam Tompkins, CUSP to discuss her recent article, ”Safety by Design, Safety Management System Planning.” This is the third installment of a six-part series where Pam delves into the critical role of planning in creating an effective safety management system (SMS). Pam explains why a proactive, systemic approach is essential for identifying and mitigating workplace hazards, moving beyond a reactive safety model. She emphasizes the importance of conducting a gap analysis to understand the current state of safety, using a systems-thinking approach to risk management, and setting clear, measurable objectives. The discussion also covers the use of leading indicators and key performance indicators (KPIs) to track progress and ensure continuous improvement, all within the framework of the ANSI/ASSP Z10-2019 standard. Key Takeaways: A proactive ”safety by design” approach is crucial to move beyond a reactive safety culture that waits for accidents to happen. Conducting a gap analysis is an essential first step to identify weaknesses in your current safety practices and align improvements with fieldwork. Leading indicators, such as safety observations and near-miss reporting, provide a more accurate picture of safety performance than lagging indicators like incident rates. A systems-thinking approach helps to understand how people, processes, and equipment interact, leading to more effective risk management. Setting SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound) objectives is key to making safety goals actionable and accountable. The ANSI/ASSP Z10-2019 standard provides a comprehensive framework for building and maintaining a robust safety management system. Engaging employees at all levels in the safety planning process is vital for building a strong safety culture and ensuring that procedures are practical and effective. Q&A: Q: What is the main problem with a reactive approach to safety? A: A reactive approach to safety is insufficient because it waits for accidents to happen before taking action. In high-risk industries like electric power, the consequences of an incident can be catastrophic, making it too late to react after a fatality or serious injury has occurred. Q: Can you provide an example of an effective leading indicator? A: One effective leading indicator is near-miss reporting. A high level of participation in near-miss reporting is a positive sign that employees are engaged in the safety process and feel comfortable speaking up about potential hazards. This allows organizations to address issues before they lead to an incident. Q: What is ”systems thinking” in the context of safety? A: Systems thinking is about looking at the bigger picture and recognizing that safety is influenced by the interaction of people, processes, and equipment. Instead of blaming an individual for a mistake, a systems-thinking approach looks for flaws in the system that may have contributed to the error, such as impractical procedures or a lack of resources. #SafetyByDesign #UtilitySafety #SafetyManagementSystem #ProactiveSafety #LeadingIndicators #WorkplaceSafety #SafetyCulture OSHA Power Electric Standards Course -  https://ip-institute.com/osha-electric-power-standards/ Subscribe to Incident Prevention Magazine - https://incident-prevention.com/subscribe-now/ Register for the iP Utility Safety Conference & Expo - https://utilitysafetyconference.com/