In our last blogpost, we discussed our inquisitive approach during our site visits and interviews to disrupt workers’ complacency. Our goal is not to criticize or audit, but to gain an unbiased and factual understanding on how the operation, process and team works. We want to see what lies beyond “official” flowcharts and organizational schemes.
Below are four more techniques to gain insight into an operation.
1) The “characters” card deck. This deck consists of eight cards, each one representing a “character” typically encountered in organizations. For example, Mrs. Rozy Scenario is overconfident and unaware of hazards and risks. Mr. Perryl Shield believes that technological, brute-force mitigations can solve any present and future problem. At the beginning of the interviews, we ask participants to select the character they believe most closely expresses their attitude toward risks and risk mitigations. During the interview, we keep challenging the interviewee if we detect a divergence between the explanations they give and the character they chose. It is an easygoing way to find discrepancies between attitude and practice.
2) The “buddies” hazard identification role play. We ask all the participants to split into three or four groups as they see fit, generally leading to groups of “buddies” (possibly based on age, sex, cultural background, or mindset). We provide a detailed example of a scenario and hazards within the scenario, then ask each group to perform hazard identification. As each participant has previously selected a character from the character card deck, we engage the individuals and the groups based on their statements and characters. We ask the groups to debate their findings and assessments. Organizational “schools of thought” emerge. Opinionated participants stand out.
3) The alternate “buddies” hazard identification role play. This technique is similar to the last technique, but in this system, interviewees evaluate themselves using a scoring system before splitting in groups. In some cases, we can ask delegates to use the deck of cards, then self-evaluate and discuss blatant discrepancies between the two. The rating system delivers a finer evaluation than the deck of cards and opens the door to a specific test in the next technique.
4) The “well balanced groups” hazard identification role play. In this technique, we present a questionnaire that helps derive an objective rating and related strengths. Delegates discuss the gap between their self-evaluation and the questionnaire rating, and how the two can have an impact on their hazard awareness and mindset. We then create working groups with teams that have a mixture of personalities and mindsets. Like in the last two techniques, we ask each group to perform hazard identification in an example scenario. Like above, we engage the individuals and the groups, and ask the groups to debate their findings. The variety in participants in the groups can make for a different conversation than when groups are formed with like-minded participants.
This is a summary of what we find useful during hazard identification interviews. Not all four approaches need to be used at the same time; the activities are tailored based on the preliminary interactions with the audience and the degree of willingness to participate.
