It is not the tool’s fault!

It is important to reflect critically on what we do as safety professionals and practitioners. For a couple of years now, I have offered critique on certain tools and approaches. At the same time, I have also commented on critique. The tools and applications we critique can be used for good, after all. One frequently used argument – by me or by others – is that it is not the tool that is at fault, but the application. Let us explore this a bit more, because is this always true?

If not the tool, then what?

At a first glance, there is merit to the argument. If you use a hammer to drive in a screw, it is not the hammer which is wrong, but the person who is using this less effective method. However, is that the message we want to send? It’s not the tool, it’s the one who uses it? We have a parallel here in the slogan, “Guns don’t kill people, people do.” (*)

As such, is saying “It’s not the tool” an indirect way of blaming someone? There is of course a difference between a scenario of getting the order “Fix the garden fence”, then going to the tool shed and selecting there a hammer and screws to do the job, and a scenario of being given a hammer and a box of screws with the instruction to fix that fence and do it now and stop complaining. The point is: a comment of “It’s not the tool” requires some further discussion. In no circumstances should we judge this person as “an idiot” too quickly. It may be a situation of the system setting the person up or forcing him/her to make trade-offs.

Tools create realities

A tool is not only a way to approach reality with, for example to fix that broken fence. At the same time, a tool also helps to create reality. This is nicely illustrated in that old saying of “If all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like nails.” You should have no trouble finding cases and analogies of your own. If you are going to make to trip from Berlin to Paris and you have the choice between taking the train, a vintage Trabant or a Ferrari F8 Spider, these different tools will definitely alter the reality of the trip. It is also known that carrying a weapon tends to foster aggression. And besides, while guns don’t kill, they are designed to facilitate the process…

We see similar effects in safety (management). If you express safety as a set of numbers (e.g., injuries per month), safety may be perceived as a metric to manage on the management dashboard. If you use certain audit tools, you will start looking for deviations. So, while tools in themselves are not at fault, through their altering effect on reality, they do matter.

Is it the tool, at least in part?

Taking this point further, we sometimes need to consider whether tools are rigged against us. Not through intent, but because their design, appearance, and analogy to other tools leads us into interpreting them and using them in certain ways.

There are many instruments that should help us having dialogues and ask questions. Instead, through their design they lead us believing that they offer answers and nudge us towards some ‘obvious’ solutions. How people understand the use of these instruments intuitively is not how they can be employed effectively or positively. Instead, the intuitive application leads us astray.

Examples for these: most metrics, risk matrices, risk ranking tools and safety culture assessments or maturity ladders, to name just a few. While these should just serve as a starting point to ask questions, such as “Why is this as it is?”, “How do we perceive this risk?”, or “What are the strengths and weaknesses of our organisation?” and then lead to fruitful dialogue, they typically trick us into thinking more (and sometimes: less) is better, that numbers are a precise answer to questions, and that culture is homogeneous and that it can be measured on some scale.

A case

Take a recent experience during an HSE-course for leaders and safety representatives. This included a risk assessment exercise. After I joined my organisation, we threw out numbers and matrices in our HSE management system. We want people to think about risk qualitatively, building on dialogue and exploring uncertainty. However, the session was led by a consultant who provided participants with material for the exercise based on their off-the-shelf tools, including numbered risk matrices.

The result: after the exercise, people returned to the plenary session, typically starting their feedback with something in the vein of: “We chose this situation from John’s office with hazard xyz. We ranked it at 12 with severity 4 and likelihood 3.” Before the exercise, they had heard the explanation, which emphasized shared understanding and discussion. However, then they went into the group session and saw the instrument that had been given to them. Consequently, the appearance of the tool led them to believe that they had to solve the assignment by applying a formula and finding a ‘right’ answer. This led to the way they opened their feedback.

The tool may be the problem

But what does the number – or the colour – say at all? At best, it is extremely poor information. Richer information you only can get by having a discussion, but why should you engage in that if you think you found an answer? This is one of the key problems of some of our tools (including surveys and assessments): they seem to want you to find a number, while they primarily should be used as a starting point for dialogue. However, through their design they seem to deliver an answer and that shuts off the opportunity for asking questions...

And then there is another issue. Many of these tools are seemingly easy to use and also easy to manipulate. Take for example the ‘yellow-wash’ of risk matrices. By changing just one value, something changes from the problematic red to the acceptable yellow (or the other way if you want to draw attention to your issue). If manipulation is made easy, that may contribute to using the tool, but also to ‘abusing’ the too

And so…

I am not saying we must stop using certain tools. Yes, there are surely some that we should employ as little as possible. However, more important is that we reflect on their use. About their limitations and applicability. How they can lead to sub-optimal results. How they can serve other goals (e.g., the political yellow-wash). And how they can trick us into certain ways of thinking.

Even if all you have is a hammer, you still need to use your head!

###

(*) For some interesting reflections on that slogan, see this blog.

In case you want to read more about tools that may or may not be the problem, check out my books on Safety Culture, Measuring Safety and Safety Myths.