We then take a look at the relationship between the core values, the systems, the processes and how we actually deliver. Within Scanscale we have a new re-articulated core value called Care for Life. So that's really the why, why we're driving safety improvement. Why we're improving our systems and processes from an environment standpoint, health and safety parts of our program. So again seeing that through a risk lens where we identify a risk and opportunity to mitigate that risk but really being driven by a core company humanistic core value and care for life. So that's really the why between our move forward. So [INAUDIBLE] environment I mentioned earlier, or [INAUDIBLE] policies and procedures, that's really the walk. That’s what we're trying to deliver. A systematic process to try to help us identify the risk, identify the best way to control that risk. A means to measure how engaged we are in the process. But how do we deploy those programs, and how do we manage and continually improve those programs? That's our Safety Health and Environment Management System or SHEMS program. That was an eyesore USAS certified program based on the Deming cycle, where we continually improve through the plan, do, check, act, process. So again driven by the IFE culture, we use the SHEMS to deploy and manage and measure and the ultimate goal is to protect workers, protect their clients, protect the company brand name and protect the environment through the plan to check, act, containment proven process. That's how we believe we're gonna get the safety excellence in the future. So let's have a look at some of the factors when we have situations or incidents or when people get hurt on our projects. We can split it up when we look at job factors. We look at organizational factors and look at conditions and systems and processes. So, ultimately, we focus 80% our time on the systems processes and the systems the analytics the data. When we really have done to analyze an actual injury, the root cause really come down to human decisions. So it's a culture and the people's decisions that are the key factors and having negative results. So the human factors are really the area that we need to be more focused on. The engagement and the process, the core value behind the system and process. So we need to realign our approach in general and we need to move away from an industry wide focus on lagging indicators. I mentioned earlier, but injuries, or incidents that fall in certain buckets that are described by OSHA but really ultimately the near miss is only one inch or one second away from being a fatality. So we get too wrapped up ad trying to be measured on log indicator rates and we really need to move towards leading indicators. Really measuring visible leadership, measuring engagements and systems and processes. We need to really focus on the the core competency of our work force at management level right down throw to the front line. We need to create an environment where innovation is rife where everybody feels free and empowered to think outside the box. To be part of the solution. To be innovative and really push their ideas right through to be part of the solution. Again, I think we miss opportunities where we perceive that our engineering department or design department, that these are the only people that can come up with solutions to improve our performance not only from a safety perspective, health perspective, or an environmental management system perspective, and productivity and quality as well. And thats where we really need to have a holistic approach as to how we execute what we should systematically approach, what quality on budget, on time to schedule. Absolutely, we should make as a construction company but we can deal all of these things safely with people's health in mind, with the stewardship of the environment and mind as we do so. So again, moving making that paradigm shift from lagging indicators to leading indicators that have meaning and value to drive these core concepts. How do we measure performance? Again we're not saying totally excluding lagging indicators and don't learn from our mistakes. We're not seeing that, but what we absolutely must do, we must make a correlation between both leading and lagging indicators. And what we found very useful is when we break down some key components of our management systems processes competencies, how we deal with contractors. Even how we communicate, how effective is our communication process and driving our program to the next level? And ultimately, how do you measure culture? So if we have these specific drivers that feel are within our company that can push positive change, we need to be measuring against perspective targets and goals and really again having corporate level right down to the front line. Everybody within the company being part of that process. So we wanna be measuring those leading indicators that bring positive value and then correlate them, by all means, to the lagging indicators. And again, that gives credence to the fact, are we picking the right target, so are we setting the right goals. We need to raise the bar in certain areas so, maybe it's simple, easy to communicate, make it relative between lagging and leaning indicators. Then we start to get people to pay attention cuz it's someone they can touch and feel and see and they can measure performance against other projects, against other business units, against other companies because we are ultimately very competitive human beings. The type A personality seems to be prevalent in construction, so we wanna play off of that core value that seems to drive construction workers across the industry. We wanna be competitive, so let's be competitive in how well we execute. Let's be competitive in how innovative we can be and how inclusive we can be to have everybody involved in a solution as we move forward. So, again, being concise, effectively communicating performance indicators with everybody involved. And getting people excited about the right things and not getting too wrapped up in the injury buckets that are perceived as per OSHA classifications. We need to look way beyond compliance. We need to look at active leadership engagement through the full company structure and through the full industry.
