“When two worlds collide…
Your world was made up
Of things sweet and good
My world could never fit in”
A summary to be posted interestingly used systems dynamics modelling/insights to evaluate a failed BBS intervention in the construction industry.
The BBS program used 5 key interventions: goal setting, feedback, activity-based training, rewards, punishment (which involved a three-strike system).
*** Note: This isn’t a criticism of behavioural approaches, nor to fuel the division and tribalism in our industry. Just cool to see blending of perspectives ***
First, they covered literature around BBS. It has a rather long, well-developed and extensive literature base (image 2).
But, like anything, things don’t always work as expected (image 3).
Key findings from this study were:
· The impact of the BBS intervention produced mixed results over 36 weeks.
· No statistically significant improvement was observed across all of the nine categories.
· Although “unsafe behaviour” slightly *increased* from baseline with excavation, working at height, manual handling, hot work, and traffic management, it was still not statistically significant.
They then used the causal loop diagrams to discuss the failed approach from a broader systems dynamics (but still pretty limited systems theoretical) lens.
Key limitations of this approach related to:
1. Dynamics of goal commitment: While the program relied heavily on individual goal commitments, organisational goal conflicts (production pressure etc.) eroded the commitment.
2. Punishment: Punishment led to BBS observers being seen as police officers. People also complied to avoid punishment, and thus neither improved their affective or normative commitments.
3. Monetary incentive: Use of incentives may “erode intrinsic motivation and therefore undermine task performance” (p210).
Authors: Authors: Guo, B. H., Goh, Y. M., & Wong, K. L. X. (2018). A system dynamics view of a behavior-based safety program in the construction industry. Safety science, 104, 202-215.
Study link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.01.014
SafetyInsights.org 