SafetyInsights.org

By way of video and interviews, this study explored the ways insulation installers working in the Australian construction industry reflect on their work practices and explained the gaps between procedures and practice.

The authors argue a more nuanced lens around procedure departures is important because traditional approaches to OHS can assume that rule departures are done by deviant workers for individual reasons whereas the reasons behind departures can be complex, including individual, environmental and system factors.

Providing background, they note:

• “Alper and Karsh (2009) suggest that violations have not been more carefully studied because they are assumed to be actions taken by deviant workers. In reality, the causes of violations are complex and include individual, as well as environmental and system problem” (p458)
• Rule departures take different forms and don’t, of course, all share the same underlying factors. Reason’s taxonomy of departures are described, involving 1) routine (for avoiding unnecessary effort or bypassing unworkable procedures), 2) thrill-seeking/optimising (to make tasks more exciting or rewarding), 3) necessary (completed just so the job can actually be completed), 4) exceptional (undertaken during extreme situations when system is operating outside of normal parameters)
• Some argue that violations can be unintentional whereas others argue that they involve an element of behavioural intent. This study viewed unintentional rule departures as rule-based mistakes

The method involved engaging insulation installers in Australian building industry to film their own work practices – said to afford an “ideal opportunity to understand situated work practices “from the inside-out” (Dekker 2003)” (p458). Once filmed, the worker-made films were shared with other workers and used as training resources.

Results

Several instances of unintentional rule departure were found. Some rules were routinely broken because workers didn’t know they existed. One example included a rule requiring 600mm clearance when using a nail gun adjacent to an electrical conduit. Although the installers now knew about the rule following an audit, the clearance distance was documented within their SOP.

Regarding the SOP, workers described how they often didn’t read the documents in detail, admitting to a lot of the time just signing and handing it back.

The accessibility and legibility of rules are critical determinants of their use. For installers, “presenting rules in written form was observed to be problematic” (p459). Low literacy levels were identified. In one example, an interviewee admitted that there just isn’t enough time for some people to read voluminous documents – or be embarrassed in front of co-workers about their reading skills; so they just sign.

Sub-contractors also experienced commercial pressures which impacted the use and effectiveness of rules. Ticking boxes to say that workers have read the SOP but without actually checking whether rules are properly understood or followed is said to be called a “gambit of compliance”. Contractors are said to turn a blind eye in the interests of work getting done.

The site constraints also influenced rule use. Found was that limited space when accessing ceiling spaces made it virtually impossible to follow the SOP (eg around ladder use when accessing ceiling spaces).

Formal safety documents were said to be developed “at a general level of abstraction, often by people who may not understand the applicability of rules … to local conditions” (p460). Rules often make assumptions about the way work will be done that don’t reflect practice (eg WAI vs WAD).

Some workers described instances of being expected to violate SOPs by the principal contractors. This included not isolating electrical services before working – often controlled by the contractors. Installers said they may not receive info from the contractors about the location of cables in walls or ceilings or whether cables are live. Further, they also receive resistance from the contractors in isolating electricity – in some cases threats of contract termination – due to the “inconvenience that it would cause out on job sites” (p461).

Interestingly, it’s said that there’s an expectation by contractors that the installers will bend rules to get the job done – reflective of power relations between companies “in which economic and reward pressures become successively greater towards the bottom of the supply chain” (p461).

Again, an example included working around live cables with a nailgun for insulation installer and where the risk to installers is tacitly accepted by the contractors. However, if an accident occurred, blame would be placed on the installers for breaking the rules.

In discussing the findings, the authors note that of rules “Violation is a pejorative word that suggests deviance and wrong-doing” (p462). However, these rule departures were seen to not be deliberate acts of sabotage, but rather mundane and everyday occurrences by people to get work done or just inadvertently.

Although these gaps between rules and practice were long-known by the workers, it came as a surprise to the safety manager and studying work “opened up a valuable opportunity to learn from observing workers’ situated work practices and re-thinking the equipment needed for the job” (p462).

These rule departures, said to be conveniently hidden from view by managers, may be locally optimally but may also lead to practical drift if overlooked by managers. Further, a focus on the proceduralisation of safety is disempowering for workers, devaluing their judgement and experience in adapting rules to practice.

Nevertheless, checks and balances and mechanisms also need to be in place to understand the gaps and rule departures. This should better facilitate learning about work and more effective redesign of work and tools etc.

Participatory videos revealed instances where equipment provided to workers needed to be reconsidered. Elsewhere, participatory video “changed one installer’s understanding of safety and acceptance of taking risks” (p461). The authors argue that participatory video can be an “effective way to understand situated practices from the perspectives of workers themselves” and that participatory video “is not just a data collection approach but it is, in part, also an intervention” (p462).

That is, the goal of participatory video isn’t to simply produce videos for training, but use the video production process to “generate critical thinking and “empower people with the confidence, skills and information they need to tackle their own issues” (p462).

Authors: Lingard, H., Pink, S., Hayes, J., McDermott, V., & Harley, J. (2016, September). In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ARCOM Conference: Construction Work and the Worker (Vol. 1, pp. 457-466). Association of Researchers in Construction Management Manchester, UK.

Study link: http://www.arcom.ac.uk/-docs/proceedings/4e39056b6026023e0f63e67e61c767c5.pdf

LinkedIn post: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/using-participatory-video-understand-subcontracted-rule-hutchinson