Behavioral Based Safety and Ergonomics: A Major Oxymoron? Part 2

In my previous blog I described the how behavioral based safety and ergonomics are not the same and definitely do not utilize the same approach.  That being said, companies are really good at identifying “bad” employee behavior and using policy, observations and enforcement to correct it.  So the question becomes how do companies who aren’t versed in ergonomics learn how to change behavior through workplace design?  Let’s start with a simple framework on which built upon.

There are basically 7 steps to determining design solutions to change behavior.

1. Identify the unwanted or unsafe behavior

This is the most obvious and easiest of the 7 steps.  This is the one that needs doesn’t need more explanation.

1. Identify the risk factors associated with this behavior

There has to be a reason why a unwanted behavior is ‘unwanted’.  There usually is a consequence to that behavior that the company wants to avoid.   The risk factors are directly correlated to the consequences.  Take the first example in the last blog:  The employee manually lifts the 100 lbs. item instead of using the hoist.  The risk factor for injury is the heavy lifting the consequence is a back injury.

1. Evaluate the workplace, work design and work flow associated with the risk factors

The evaluation is basically root cause analysis as to why the behavior is occurring.  The cause often falls onto the employee himself which to me is not a root cause at all; however, it is quicker and easier to assign blame to a person than it is to find fault with administrative policy, work process/procedures, work flow, work environment, etc.  A thorough root cause analysis is needed to truly find the reason for occurrence as that will be the basis for step 4.  For our example the root cause analysis for the worker not using the hoist was because it was too slow, he could work faster than the hoist and if he used the hoist he didn’t get his work breaks.

1. Determine all possible ergonomic (engineering/work system design) solutions

This is where having the correct root cause is vitally important because the wrong root cause will result in the wrong solutions.  I highly suggest that every possible solution be written down once even if it is remote because that just helps in the brainstorming and funneling down of each solution.  In our example, possible solutions include re-engineering the hoist so it runs faster, a totally new hoist (assuming the existing one’s speed can’t be increased), a method to eliminate the stop in the process so that the item directly transported to the next work area without the need to be lifted, etc.

1. ABC analysis of each solution  (as well as ROI of each solution)

ABC analysis means that each solution is evaluated for the behaviors it will or will not produce.  A=antecedent; what happens before the behavior or action, B=behavior or action, and C=consequence; what happens after the behavior or action.  Choosing a solution that solves one behavior only to produce another unwanted behavior is not one that should be chosen.  In our example, let’s say I choose to increase the speed of the hoist and have the speed be self-selected by the employee but fail to put a governor on it (i.e. a maximum speed limiter) then the employee could choose a speed that is not safe.  This obviously wouldn’t be a good solution.

1. Implementation of the solution

Once a solution is identified then it has to be implemented.  This may or may not involve additional training of the employee, work process changes and/or be phased in over time.  In our example, the hoist is re-engineered to have a range of speed (minimum and maximum) that the employee can control.

1. Track and evaluate the solution (Continuous improvement)

The last step is one that I feel should automatically follow every implementation.  If you don’t create metrics and track them how do you know if the solution/change implemented is actually doing what you expected it to do.  I know and understand metrics can be a “pain” to supervisors and managers but they are needed in order to know if it is a success and how much of a success it is, i.e. does it need more improvement.  In our example, metrics could include employee satisfaction with the change, percentage of time hoist is used for each item lift and number of item lifts/day.

Hopefully the above provides a useful framework on which to not only evaluate the behavior but also the ergonomic solutions and the possible behaviors they may cause.  Remember, the workplace—how it is designed, can and does create, support, encourage/discourage behavior.  Trying to change behavior with a behavior will prove to be frustrating and less successful over time compared to changing the design of the workplace (ergonomics) to change behavior.

What are your thoughts?