A Health & Safety leadership read on how well the team's critical interfaces are defined, owned, run and measured — across five interface management best practices.
The Health Score is the percentage of respondents who rated a statement 4 or 5 out of 5 — Agree or Strongly Agree. Like an NPS top-box, it counts conviction, not the midpoint of opinion.
A higher score means more of the leadership team believe a best practice is being met today — a more conservative, action-oriented read than a simple average.
Three measures sit behind overall health: Understanding (do we grasp the best practices), Performance Belief (will meeting them improve performance), and Alignment (do we meet them today, across the five best practices).
Percentage of respondents who rated 4 or 5 of 5 — a conservative, action-oriented measure rather than a simple average.
How well participants understand the interface management best practices. Measured before and after the session.
How well the team believes the interfaces currently meet each of the five best practices. The core of the assessment.
Confidence that managing the interfaces to these best practices will deliver better safety and performance outcomes.
The average of the Understanding, Alignment and Performance Belief health scores.
One of the five interface management best practices: Services; Accountability; Routines; Shared Metrics; Ownership & Effectiveness.
The team understands the best practices and believes in them — making the interfaces meet them today is where the work sits.
| # | Best practice | Health | What we heard | Opportunity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Services | 55% (3.5) | Best of the set; works where services are written down, but several interfaces still rely on assumed services. | Document a service catalogue for the top interfaces. |
| 2 | Accountability | 27% (2.7) | Roles and decision rights across the interface are unclear; both sides assume the other decides. | Clarify decision rights and a RACI per interface. |
| 3 | Routines | 45% (3.3) | Some interfaces have routines; others are ad-hoc, and routines aren't always focused on the right things. | Stand up fit-for-purpose routines on the priority interfaces. |
| 4 | Shared Metrics | 9% (2.0) | Lowest — few interfaces have shared, owned metrics; each side judges performance differently. | Define a small set of shared, visible metrics with owners. |
| 5 | Ownership & Effectiveness | 36% (3.0) | End-to-end ownership is thin; performance and risks aren't actively managed across the boundary. | Name end-to-end interface owners; review effectiveness on a cadence. |
"I understand the interface management best practices we are assessing against."
The best practices are clear once articulated — the challenge is embedding them into how the interfaces are actually run and measured, not explaining them. That is where the gap-closure work now sits.
The lowest-scoring practices — Shared Metrics and Accountability — are where the gap-closure conversation should start.
"The services provided between teams are clearly defined and understood by both parties."
The strongest practice. Where teams have actually agreed what they provide each other, the interface runs well — the gaps are the interfaces that have never been written down and rely on assumed or implicit services.
"Role accountability and decision making is clear and effective across the interface."
Roles and decision rights across the interface are unclear. Responsibility and authority are not consistently understood on both sides — "on the big calls it's not always clear who decides; both sides think it's the other."
"Teams have regular and effective routines in place to ensure ongoing engagement, feedback and performance."
Some interfaces have regular routines; others rely on ad-hoc contact. Where routines exist, they aren't always focused on the things that actually move the interface — "we meet, but the routine isn't always about what matters."
"Shared metrics are clearly defined, visible and monitored to ensure the expected level of performance."
The lowest-scoring practice. Few interfaces have shared, owned metrics; each side measures its own part and judges performance differently — "we measure our bit, they measure theirs; there's no shared number we both look at."
"There is clear ownership to ensure the end-to-end interface is working effectively and improving."
End-to-end ownership of the interfaces is thin. Performance and risks aren't actively managed across the boundary and there is little continuous improvement — "nobody owns the whole interface end-to-end, so when it drifts no one pulls it back."
| # | Action | Best practice | Priority | Owner | Status | Due |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Define a small set of shared, owned metrics for the priority H&S–operations interfaces. | Shared Metrics | High | Priya Iyer | In Progress | 31 Jul 2026 |
| 2 | Name end-to-end owners for each critical interface and set an effectiveness review cadence. | Ownership & Effectiveness | High | Priya Iyer | Not Started | 31 Aug 2026 |
| 3 | Clarify decision rights and a RACI across the top interfaces. | Accountability | High | Priya Iyer | Not Started | 15 Aug 2026 |
| 4 | Document a service catalogue for the interfaces that rely on assumed services. | Services | Medium | Priya Iyer | Not Started | — |
| 5 | Stand up fit-for-purpose coordination routines on the priority interfaces. | Routines | Medium | Priya Iyer | Not Started | — |
Summary of facilitator notes and participant responses per best practice.