In the workplace and to a similar extent at home or on the road, there are only 3 main sources of unexpected events: either the equipment does something unexpectedly, someone else does something unexpectedly or we do something unexpectedly.
Hello and welcome back to the “Paradigm Shifts” series.
Last issue, we discussed whether it was hazards or is it hazardous energy? The conclusion (although fairly straightforward) is that it’s really hazardous or potentially hazardous energy… which can move. People can also move, which means that eyes and mind on task are very important, which means that human error is important – primary in fact – whenever people are moving or things around them are moving.
So, if we acknowledge that human error is important, the next question is “who”. Whose error caused the incident? Is it always the other person or is it mostly us? And what about when there’s no human error, just mechanical or electrical failure?
Well, one thing we do know is that no one is ever trying to get hurt or cause a lot of accidental damage. Nobody ever plans to do this, which means that something unexpected must have happened. Once something unexpected happens, it’s like the first “domino” falling. Then, depending on how many other dominos are lined up, that unexpected event will start a chain reaction. Once the chain reaction starts, and the dominoes start falling – exactly where you end on the (old) risk pyramid is usually determined by the amount of hazardous energy and luck (landing on your feet is usually better than landing on your head and a one-meter fall is usually better than a 10-meter fall).
Essentially there are only 3 sources of unexpected events: You do something unexpectedly; the other person does something unexpectedly or the equipment does something unexpectedly. (See figure #1)
Which of these three sources do you think is the highest or most important? If we asked these same questions to all the people you work with at your company, what would they say?
Well, before getting into the percentages for each category, let’s take a moment to think about what’s actually happened to us in terms of injuries and near misses. The reason for this is that when you look at reports, the information can be “filtered” right from the beginning. We really don’t know whether the person fell asleep at the wheel or whether a dog, deer or some other form of wildlife ran out in front of them, and we don’t know if what they told the police was the truth (some people don’t). But we certainly know whether or not we fell asleep at the wheel.
Figure #1
So, how many serious injuries have you had? (Broken bones, 3rd degree burns, serious concussions, etc.) Next, how many minor injuries like sprains and strains, stitches, mild concussions, etc. Have you sustained? And then, how many cuts, bruises, bumps and scrapes have you had? How do you compare with most people (see figure #2).
Obviously, when you bang your shin on the coffee table it’s unlikely that the table did anything unexpectedly. But what about all the other stuff? Well, now that you’ve thought a bit about your injuries to date, how many of them were caused by the equipment doing something unexpectedly? Note: if you have 100 people in the room you normally only get one or two hands up for this question. When you ask about the other guy doing something unexpectedly be sure to exclude contact sports where the other guy is trying to hurt you.
Figure #2
Again, with 100 people you usually get 10-15 hands up but rarely does anyone have more than one example. And finally, what’s left are all the injuries in the self-area. For most people over 95% of the injuries they have sustained were in the “self-area”. Although most people “freely” admit that it’s more like 97-99%.
Over 3 million people have been through this exercise at thousands and thousands of workplaces. And in terms of paradigm shifts, it’s probably the most powerful or one of the most powerful ones. What most workers/people think (or thought before going through this exercise) is that the equipment doing something unexpectedly or the other guy doing something unexpectedly will be much higher than the self-area. Even the people who have already come to the realization that the self-area is probably the highest are really surprised at just how high it is: most people (over 80%) have never been seriously hurt because the equipment or somebody else did something unexpectedly. In other words, 100% of their serious injuries were in the self-area.
This exercise, where you get everyone to build their own personal risk pyramid and then think about each of the 3 sources, as you can imagine, is a real “eye opener” for people who previously thought it was mostly the equipment or the other guy.
So, we have met the enemy, and the enemy is us. But this is actually very empowering: because if it always was the equipment or the other guy doing something unexpectedly then we would be powerless or close to powerless in terms of being able to do something about it.
But if it’s us, then we can.
Be part of the SafeStart Paradigm Shifts Community!
The pdf version of this article is available for Community members only.
Join to receive free first-hand access to new content, articles, guides, videos & live sessions with SafeStart Author Larry Wilson and other human factors thought leaders.
SafeStart will keep you up to date by e-mail on developments in human factors and related subjects that can help change your safety culture and improve overall performance.
Join today!
Join to receive free first-hand access to new content, articles, guides, videos & live sessions with SafeStart Author Larry Wilson and other human factors thought leaders.
SafeStart will keep you up to date by e-mail on developments in human factors and related subjects that can help change your safety culture and improve overall performance. Join today!
Thank you for Signing Up
Your contact information is secure and will be treated confidentially. It will only be used to get in contact with you.
Your contact information is secure and will be treated confidentially. It will only be used to get in contact with you.
When you ask people what is more important: hazards or human error you will get many different perspectives. This article explores those perspectives and introduces a new way of thinking about hazards and hazardous energy.
This article explores the importance of incorporating human factors into all risk assessments. It also begins to explain the counter-intuitive nature of serious injury causation.
This article begins by explaining that what really causes the majority of serious injuries isn’t what we’ve been told. And then by reflecting (once again) on our own personal risk pyramid, the importance of mind on task is discussed.
#5 – Equilibrium: The Progression and Eventual Termination of Safety Judgement and Skill Development
What most people don’t realize is that the number of “defenseless moments” they experience is continuing to go up as they become more complacent over time.
#6- The State To Error Risk Pattern And The Concept Of Self-Triggering
In this episode when you think about all of injuries in the self-area (over 95%), and then think about the four critical errors: eyes not on task, mind not on task, moving into the line of fire and problems with balance,
#7 – The Neuroscience Behind the Critical Error Reduction Techniques
Although the neuroscience has only been possible since FMRI’s were around, or for about half as long as the critical error reduction techniques have been available, it does help to validate the techniques. However, the biggest benefit or the most important benefit the neuroscience really proves, is why the repetition of the concepts and discussing how the injury or close call could have been worse, is so important in terms of improving and strengthening the neural pathways which enables our sub-conscious mind to develop that instant sense of danger when we’re rushing, frustrated or fatigued (critical error reduction technique #2).
#8 – The Complacency Continuum And “When vs. What”
Knowing what actually causes the majority of serious injuries and fatalities is a good start, certainly much better than guessing or assuming that it’s due to a lack of management commitment. However, in order to prevent serious incidents and fatalities we need to know “when”. When will be most likely to make a critical error? This article explores the concept of Anticipating Error™ and provides practical tools for helping you and your employees to Rate Your State™ when in a situation where there is a high risk for making one or more critical errors that could cause a serious injury or expensive mistake.
#9- Critical Decisions – Part 1: Normal Risk vs. Making an Exception
Although there could be many reasons why people take deliberate risks, most people only operate in 2 modes. Either this is what they normally do (not wearing face shield) or today they are making an exception to what they normally do. It’s not really overly complicated. It’s also easy to see what states or combination of them could easily cause someone to “break their own rules”. However, this article will go even further and show how, by slightly extending the application, the same four critical error reduction techniques can be used to prevent making critical decisions that are compromised or negatively influenced by rushing, frustration, fatigue and complacency.
#10 – Critical Decision – Part 2: Deliberate Risk And Error
It’s interesting how most people avoid risk they can’t influence, like people who are afraid to fly but don’t worry about driving to the airport. People tend to underestimate the risk that depends on not making an error. So much so that they will deliberately do things that will take their mind off task, or—as with texting and driving—take their eyes and mind off task at the same time. This article explains the importance of trying to increase mind on task, and provides practical tips for how to do this when the amount of hazardous energy is high enough to cause serious injuries, but has become too common or too familiar like driving 60mph/100kph on highway or working around fork trucks in a manufacturing plant.
#11 – Improving Quality, Production Efficiency And Customer Relations
This article explains how often the four states are involved in all aspects of human error, apart from when people are learning or doing something new. This is another huge paradigm shift for most people. However, once they realize just how many mistakes they make, every day or every week due to the four states, it’s relatively easy to get them to use the same critical error reduction techniques along with other concepts or techniques like fail-safe, double-check, Anticipating Error™ and Rate Your State™ to minimize or prevent making big mistakes that could affect quality, production efficiency or that could cause significant problems with sales or customer relations.
SHARE THIS ARTICLE!