Human Performance Improvement Part 2
To quickly review: HPI is an individual working within organizational systems to meet expectations set by leadership.
This concept is profound. Think about your organization's expectations. Are they consistent from top to bottom? When I evaluate a site, I have a manager articulate those expectations and then interview a worker on the floor to hear his/her version. Ideally, everyone in the organization should be able to reasonably repeat the expectations and goals, especially in the realm of safety. “Safety First” is a great concept, goal, and ideal, but is it practical?
Productivity must be taken into consideration in any enterprise. For years, it seemed difficult to reconcile what looked like competing priorities. Which leadership expectation are the workers demonstrating? Production or safety? Which one comes first?
This concept is profound. Think about your organization's expectations. Are they consistent from top to bottom? When I evaluate a site, I have a manager articulate those expectations and then interview a worker on the floor to hear his/her version. Ideally, everyone in the organization should be able to reasonably repeat the expectations and goals, especially in the realm of safety. “Safety First” is a great concept, goal, and ideal, but is it practical?
Productivity must be taken into consideration in any enterprise. For years, it seemed difficult to reconcile what looked like competing priorities. Which leadership expectation are the workers demonstrating? Production or safety? Which one comes first?
On the surface, the definition of HPI doesn't seem to be concerned with “at risk” behavior. Both workers in the picture above are demonstrating extreme at-risk behavior. The guy on the platform is standing on the tines on a pallet to do his work, and the forklift operator is moving the vehicle while his coworker is balanced precariously on the tines.
I worked in the construction industry in my youth, and I was guilty of doing both these things!
In Part 1 of this series, I introduced two key HPI terms:
1. Error Precursors: existing conditions that are known to increase error rates. (when error precursors exist, you have error likely conditions)
2. Latent organizational weakness: undetected deficiencies in organizational processes and values that create workplace conditions that provoke error or degrade the integrity of defenses.
It is easy to identify Error Precursors in the scene above:
1. Workers are using the wrong tool for the job. (clearly a ladder would be safer)
2. There was no procedure established by leadership for doing a job like this, so the workers invented the (unsafe idea) of having one worker ride on top of the forklift to the job.
3. There is no fall protection.
4. The potential of pinch points severing hands, fingers, or arms is extremely high.
I have intentionally used this image because of the irony of two workers using unsafe practices to hang up a sign reminding workers to be safe! This type of task risk is pretty common in construction work. What is uncommon is the "common sense" of thinking about organizational weaknesses and degradation of values that can have a negative impact on the workers' behavior.
The scenario pictured above is not staged nor scripted. In broad daylight, these two workers are demonstrating a deficiency in their organization's values (and posing for a picture!) If the worker standing on the pallet gets injured, it doesn't matter whether it's the fault of the contractor or site owner. What is evident is that the workers are “doing the best they can with what they have". (What they had was 2 guys and a forklift. Maybe the ladder was stowed away and the forklift was closer -- and looked like more fun.)
Given the first principle of HPI, that people are fallible and even the best of us make mistakes, when I look at the scenario in this picture, I don't see any evidence of Defense in Depth that would allow for the inevitable error and at the same time protect the worker.
Safety professionals like you and I can reprimand, punish, and even effect termination of workers that demonstrate this type of reckless behavior, but we also should consider whether we have diagnosed and treated a symptom instead of curing the disease.
I worked in the construction industry in my youth, and I was guilty of doing both these things!
In Part 1 of this series, I introduced two key HPI terms:
1. Error Precursors: existing conditions that are known to increase error rates. (when error precursors exist, you have error likely conditions)
2. Latent organizational weakness: undetected deficiencies in organizational processes and values that create workplace conditions that provoke error or degrade the integrity of defenses.
It is easy to identify Error Precursors in the scene above:
1. Workers are using the wrong tool for the job. (clearly a ladder would be safer)
2. There was no procedure established by leadership for doing a job like this, so the workers invented the (unsafe idea) of having one worker ride on top of the forklift to the job.
3. There is no fall protection.
4. The potential of pinch points severing hands, fingers, or arms is extremely high.
I have intentionally used this image because of the irony of two workers using unsafe practices to hang up a sign reminding workers to be safe! This type of task risk is pretty common in construction work. What is uncommon is the "common sense" of thinking about organizational weaknesses and degradation of values that can have a negative impact on the workers' behavior.
The scenario pictured above is not staged nor scripted. In broad daylight, these two workers are demonstrating a deficiency in their organization's values (and posing for a picture!) If the worker standing on the pallet gets injured, it doesn't matter whether it's the fault of the contractor or site owner. What is evident is that the workers are “doing the best they can with what they have". (What they had was 2 guys and a forklift. Maybe the ladder was stowed away and the forklift was closer -- and looked like more fun.)
Given the first principle of HPI, that people are fallible and even the best of us make mistakes, when I look at the scenario in this picture, I don't see any evidence of Defense in Depth that would allow for the inevitable error and at the same time protect the worker.
Safety professionals like you and I can reprimand, punish, and even effect termination of workers that demonstrate this type of reckless behavior, but we also should consider whether we have diagnosed and treated a symptom instead of curing the disease.