The organization should recognise that indicators do not always deliver the information required or stay relevant: as context changes (processes, legal requirements, knowledge of hazards) some indicators lose relevance and new ones are needed, and over time an indicator can stop measuring performance accurately or can bring unintended consequences, among them under-reporting, misrepresentation and distorted data. To prevent this the organization should regularly review its indicators to confirm they remain valid and modify them where necessary (see Clause 11). When processes are new, organizations often pick quantitative indicators of adoption (the share of incidents investigated, the share of corrective actions completed); as evaluation matures the indicators should be adjusted or extended so that they measure how good and how effective the process is, with greater use of qualitative indicators such as the conclusions of investigations. Table 2 illustrates how training and investigation indicators can develop, and initial, developing and mature indicators can coexist.
The graph holds this control, the 0 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.