For decades, the damage prevention industry has measured success by one primary indicator: fewer damages. We count incidents, track damage rates, compare performance, establish goals, and celebrate when the numbers move in the right direction. There is nothing wrong with wanting fewer damages. Every avoided damage matters. Every protected utility, uninterrupted service, and safe excavation represents a meaningful success.
But what if reducing damages is not the right goal?
That question may sound contradictory in an industry built around preventing damage. After all, isn't reducing damages exactly what we are trying to accomplish? Yes, but perhaps we have become so focused on the outcome that we have lost sight of what actually creates it.
Reducing damages is an outcome. Changing the behaviors and conditions that cause damages is the work.
A lower damage number does not necessarily mean we have become better at damage prevention. It could reflect fewer construction projects, reduced excavation activity, changes in the types of work being performed, or even damages that go unreported. Likewise, an increase in reported damages does not automatically mean prevention efforts have failed. It may indicate better reporting, greater transparency, or a willingness to acknowledge problems that previously went unrecognized.
Numbers matter, but they do not always tell us what we need to know.
The Problem Is Bigger Than Compliance
Our industry has invested heavily in laws, regulations, procedures, training, technology, and damage prevention programs. These are necessary, but they do not guarantee that the right decisions will be made in the field.
A person can complete training, follow a procedure, obtain an 811 ticket, and still make a decision that puts an underground facility at risk. A locator can follow established processes and still provide information that leaves an excavator uncertain. A utility owner can meet every regulatory requirement and still fail to provide the information or resources needed to protect its infrastructure.
The difference between compliance and prevention is often found in the decisions people make when the procedure does not provide a clear answer, when production pressure is mounting, or when something does not look right.
Damage prevention is not simply about knowing what to do. It is about making the right decision when it matters.
That requires a culture where people take ownership, communicate openly, question uncertainty, and accept accountability, not just for their individual responsibilities, but for the collective outcome.
Failure Must Become an Opportunity to Change
One of the greatest opportunities for improvement comes from how we respond when something goes wrong. Too often, damage investigations focus on identifying who made the mistake, which procedure was violated, or who is responsible for the cost. Those questions may be necessary, but they are not sufficient.
We must also ask: What made that decision possible? What information was missing? What pressures influenced the work? What could the organization have done differently? What needs to change so the same situation does not happen again?
Owning failure does not mean ignoring individual accountability. It means recognizing that preventing the next damage may require more than correcting the actions of the person closest to the incident. A damage that teaches us nothing is a missed opportunity. A near miss that is ignored is another missed opportunity. Every investigation should contribute to making the next excavation safer.
That requires honesty, trust, and a willingness to learn, even when the answers are uncomfortable.
The goal should be to change the way we think, the decisions we make, and the conditions in which we work.
When prevention becomes part of how the industry operates, not simply something we talk about, train for, or measure, fewer damages should follow. So, what if reducing damages is not the right goal? What if the real goal is to build an industry where preventing damage is simply the way we do business?
If we were as passionate about preventing damage as we are about damage prevention, what would we be doing differently?