How Do We Help People Focus On What Matters (and I'm not talking about critical controls)?

I think conversations about critical risks and critical controls can be good because they acknowledge that people can't focus on everything (and so we should focus on what's important or critical). They acknowledge there will be residual risks, and that you can't control everything, and I think this conversation can sometimes be missing from some traditional approaches in safety.

However, I worry that we might be narrowing our focus too much by connecting the development of critical controls to hazards and risks, and in doing so we're unintentionally creating more compliance (rather than awareness). What I mean is, while I think the intent is to create a focus on doing what's critical, front line personnel can experience the outcomes of a Critical Controls program as more rules and oversight.

Just put yourself into a front line perspective of being at a toolbox meeting, and the safety manager announces that the business is rolling out a Critical Controls program. That it's going to be a great way of making sure we all focus on what's important. Do those people in the audience think this is going to make their life easier or harder? Are they expecting there will be less or more compliance as a result of this announcement?

As mentioned, I don't think it's how these programs start out, but I think it's how they end up. Front line personnel rarely see new safety initiative and programs as a great new way of thinking about safety and risk. They are often more likely to see it as just more of the same, or just the "the next" things, or worse, they think it's just safety people justifying their jobs by being seen to do something.

So instead of generating critical controls out of your hazards and risks, consider this approach. Ask your front line people, "What do you think most contributes to keeping you safe?". If you collect and collate those responses into key themes, the top five or six of those should then represent your actual critical controls.

There is a bit of work in doing this, and ideally I would recommend you drop the language of critical controls. The language we often up with is- A safe day is when we... (insert your things here). So what you end up with is a very meaningful set of things that are things that people do, and/or qualities or traits of the organisations and it's leaders. Essentially you're saying, the more of this we do every day, the more likely it is we will be safe.

For context, front line personnel don't say things like "isolation", or "follow speed limits" or "exclusion zones". Instead they talk about things like themselves (their experience, awareness and skill), equipment (available and fit for purpose), support (being listened to), systems (they say procedures but not paperwork), communication (being on the same page), trust (that they feel trusted), and culture (that they like working there and feel valued).

They and up talking about much broader things that contribute to the way risk is managed every day, rather than things that control hazards for some activities. Those controls are still in there by the way (in systems, people and equipment), but they are amongst other critical, although potentially less tangible and measurable, things.

The other kicker is that this content has been developed from genuine consultation. If someone challenges the organisations as to why those are the keys things were chosen, the answered is, it's what our front line personnel told us. It turns out front line people understand what is critical to their safety, and as you can see from the examples I gave above, it's not different from what the organisation thinks, it's just framed in a different way(and more meaningful) way.

You can then turn this output into a model or framework (artefact) that becomes the focus for safety in the organisation. There is a bit of work to getting the language and framing of this right, but it ends up being far more meaningful than traditional Critical Controls models (or things like Life Saving Rules). It can be used in a many different ways (like as a customised investigation model or as a way of structuring pre-starts), and at all levels (it can becoming a fully integrated due diligence and assurance framework).

It's not a fix, it's just a more meaningful way of helping people focus on what matters.