"[...] it's likely as bold a statement today as it was when Charles identified the correlation. From a production perspective, "Reliably Safe and Safely Reliable" would probably make for a great marketing statement should anyone manage to fulfill that representation," replied Ron Butcher, Community of Human and Organizational Learning member in response to a recent LinkedIn Post by Board Member Bob Latino.
The original question is this: "Significance of Merging Safety & Reliability....Does a Synergy Exist?"
"Investigation into major accidents that get national attention invariably point to Safety factors that delineate human error and system Reliability as component causes. This natural association of Reliability and Safety is seldom seen as an entity charged with aiding in the reduction of losses. If the benefits of such a merger are apparent as a reaction to injury and property loss, then it is logical that it is appropriate for a preaction to prevent losses."
This is taken verbatim from a business case made by Charles Latino's Corporate R&D Reliability Department beginning IN 1975. There is field data listed from approximately 7 plants over an average of 5 years, demonstrating a correlation between Reliability performance and safety incidents per 200k manhours (ANSI reporting system before OSHA existed).
Here is a link to additional field data that supports a correlation between Reliability & Safety today - https://lnkd.in/dPBuxb6N.
It was bold to try and make such a case in 1975 when both fields were in their infancy nearly 50 years ago, but what about today?
For those who practice holistic Reliability (equipment, process, and human reliability) and progressive Safety, what are the pros and cons of such a conceptual merger? Is it a reliable plant, a safer plant?
Where does an organization's culture come to play in this discussion, especially when principles are viewed as priorities and not core values?
To view more on this conversation or topic, here is the link.