A little disappointed to be fair that the protocol does not seem to be in place similar to actions within the issues system.

If a person at the coal face raises an issue it could be trivial or could save money, time, effort and pain.

When the issues are raised this is the link to frontline workers so it is ultra important that where necessary we feed back and are seen to be positive about real issues raised.

The process then after this is a very important one.

This is what the Org does for potential near misses and hazards etc that can have an impact upon the company.

Therefore the access should be tiered based upon the sensitivity.
The process should also be mandated for the team who have been assigned the Issue.
They should not be able to close the issue until they have proof that this can be done i s such a way as to learn what really caused it in the first place.

This may in most cases be linked to Unsafe Acts / Unsafe Conditions.

At this point proof of what it is must be in place.
What group does it belong to?

This is where LABELS need be added to this as it is with actions so that this can be expanded and multiple labels can be added.

This then can be linked to all outputs and dashboard in order that the learning process can be activated and gaps reviewed.

The closure must be a demonstration that we have got to root cause on the near miss. It can then be treated the same way as an incident. Basically because this is the same as an incident that has not yet occurred.

I cannot emphasis the need for this to be managed throughout the issues system so that it is managed correctly and closed entirely.

Yes there will be some trivial items but the issues system is the tool that is fully inclusive, hence becomes a leading indicator that prevents a lagging indicator.

In the bigger picture this is essential in driving the culture of the business at the front end where the hazards and risks are…

Would love to have some insights into why this seems to have been missed?