績效量測與監督為職安衛管理系統規劃(Plan)、執行(Do)、查核(Check)與矯正(Act)所組成的PDCA架構中不可或缺的一部份。主要功能為藉由績效監測所提供的資訊，協助事業單位評估職安衛計畫執行狀況及目標的達成度，績效量測指標可分為主動式與被動式兩類，量測與監督職安衛管理系統運作績效，有助於評估風險控制的有效性。完善的PDCA管理循環應定期監測職安衛管理系統運作的狀況，包含將績效量測的成功或失敗的資訊，回饋至安全衛生管理系統，但是目前尚缺乏明確改善職安衛管理系統的機制，導致績效量測無法發揮持續改善的功能。
從輸入及輸出轉換的角度而言，職安衛管理系統持續改善的循環機制和化工程序控制系統的基本架構極為類似，本研究參考化工程序控制的回饋與前饋控制的運作模式，建立職安衛績效指標的回饋機制。職安衛管理系統藉由意外事故調查資訊達到回饋控制功能，前饋控制則將主動式績效指標量測結果與設定目標做比較，分析不符合事項造成原因，並擬訂適當改善措施。本研究引用HSE意外事故調查，藉由系統化分析事故發生的根本原因，並連結至OHSAS 18001職安衛管理系統，可協助事業單位更明確地瞭解目前管理系統運作的問題。意外事故調查不僅著重於辨識造成事故發生的原因，更應回歸管理系統層陎，希望藉由本研究建立的績效指標回饋機制，可加強職安衛管理系統的改善。

Performance measurement is an integral part of the PDCA management process. Benefits of performance measurement of an occupational health and safety management system include the provision of information on implementation status, identification of areas needing corrective actions, provision of the basis for continual improvement. Occupational health and safety management systems are measured by a set of reactive, or lagging, performance indicators and positive, or leading, performance indicators.
To complete the full PDCA management cycle, performance measurements must be fed back to the management system. For reactive performance indicators, this is normally accomplished through incident investigation. Although it is widely accepted that the root causes of accidents and incidents are management system failures, but the feedback mechanism from the results of accident investigation to the management system is not straightforward. The same problem exists for the feedback mechanism of positive performance indicators.
From the input-output conversion standpoint, a management process is highly analogous to a chemical process. Hence the fundamental principles of chemical process control, both feedback and feedforward control, are adopted in this study in designing the feedback mechanism of occupational safety and health performance indicators. Feedback control of the occupational safety and health management system is accomplished through incident investigation while feedforward control of the management system is performed through measuring a specific performance indicator, comparing the measurement against its target value and implementing the corrective actions.
HSE’s accident investigation technique is adopted in this study. Underlying and root causes of an incident classified by HSE are control,cooperation, communication, competence, design, implementation and risk assessment. Relationships between these factors and OHSAS 18001 requirements are established. The relationships can then be used to link the underlying and root causes back to the management system. Since most proactive performance indicators are used to measure the progress of occupational safety and health management programs, positive performance indicators can be fed back to their associated management programs directly. The proposed feedback mechanism is validated with a confined space entry program and a fatal accident report issued by the Council of Labor Affairs. It is believed that the proposed feedback mechanism can greatly enhance the effectiveness of occupational safety and health performance measurement.

1. Health and Safety Executive, HSG 65 Successful Health and Safety Management, 1991.
2. British Standards Institution, OHSAS 18001:2007-Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series-Requirements, 2007.
3. British Standards Institution, BS 18004:2008, Guide to achieving effective occupational health and safety performance, 2008.
4. International Labour Office, ILO-OSH 2001, Guidelines on occupational safety and health management systems, 2001.
5. 行政院勞工委員會，臺灣職業安全衛生管理系統指引，2008年。
6. 魏上翔，落實安全績效管理之探討，工安技術論壇，2008年。
7. 行政院經濟部工業局，安全衛生管理績效實務手冊，2006年。
8. Health and Safety Executive, A Guide to Measuring Health and Safety Performance, 2001.
9. Step Change in Safety, Leading Performance Indicators Guidance for Effective Use, 2003, UK
10. Australian Safety and Compensation Council, GUIDANCE ON THE USE OF POSITIVE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS, 2005.
11. Health and Safety Executive, Investigating Accidents and Incidents, HSE Books, 2004.
12. 行政院勞工委員會，台灣職業安全衛生管理系統建置實務手冊，2011年。
13. Joint Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand Committee SF-001, AS/NZS 4801:2001, Occupational health and safety management systems—Specification with guidance for use, 2001
14. British Standards Institution, OHSAS 18002:2008- Occupational health and safety management systems-Guidelines for the implementation of OHSAS 18001:2007, 2008.
15. 行政院勞工委員會，臺灣職業安全衛生管理系統指導綱領總說明，2008年。
16. The Chamber of Minerals and Energy, Guide to Positive Performance Measurement in the Western Australian Minerals and Resources Industry, 2004.
17. 蘇美如，職業安全衛生管理績效指標量測與應用，國立中央大學環境工程研究所碩士論文，2010年。
18. 吳國聖，推行職業安全衛生管理系統之績效研究-以印刷電路板業為例，國立交通大學產業安全與防災專班，2006年。
19. Pybus, R., Safety Management: Strategy and practice, Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann, 1996.
20. 吳聰智，安全績效及其相關研究，工業安全衛生月刊，p21-30，2000年。
21. Stephanopoulos, G., Chemical Process Control, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1984.
22. 行政院勞工委員會，危害辨識及風險評估技術指引，2009年。
23. 勞工安全衛生研究所，取自
http://www.iosh.gov.tw/Publish.aspx?cnid=197
24. 行政院勞工委員會，職業安全衛生法，2011年。
25. 行政院勞工委員會勞工安全衛生研究所，事故調查訓練教材製作， 2009年。
26. 行政院勞工委員會，勞工安全衛生事業單位管理及自動檢查，取自
http://www.iosh.gov.tw/Law/LawPublish.aspx?LID=6
27. 行政院勞工委員會，侷限空間作業危害預防要點，2003年。
28. 派普工程企業股份有限公司，侷限空間作業管理辦法，2006 年。
29. 勞工安全衛生研究所，職業災害案例輯，2007年。