You know just how pathetic Safety is when it thinks it’s being innovative in talking about humans. Surprise surprise, after decades and decades of the love of objects, zero and policing, the big innovation is to think about humans (https://www.safeopedia.com/2024/03/06/human-centered-innovation-a-new-era-of-workplace-safety).
In this laughable piece of non-safety innovation, it even calls this a ‘new era’ in safety. What a sad thing that putting humans first become a ‘new era’ in safety. Except of you read this piece there is nothing innovative in it nor anything that puts a primacy on persons. Like most safety code (https://safetyrisk.net/deciphering-safety-code/), it’s focus is on what it isn’t. The language of the text is a giveaway.
What an indictment of an industry that is yet to discover what it is to be professional. Yet, this so-called ‘innovation’ makes no mention of ethical practice or the moral meaning or persons, its focus is still on hazards and efficiency, technology and systems. You guessed it, no innovation, just traditional safety with a bit of empathy in the mix.
Let’s have a look at the language and semiotics of this article.
The first thing that stands out is an image of a person looking at a factory workshop, no conversations between persons, no interactions just machines interacting with workers. Good olde safety, still in love with objects.
But just read the first line of the text:
In the quest for workplace excellence and efficiency, the compass of innovation is increasingly turning toward human-centered innovation.
Any push for ‘efficiency’ (technique) can only ever place the nature of persons last. Just like the silly notion of ‘human factors’ safety that views humans as a ‘factor’ in a system. The quest for efficiency is the opposite of any approach that focuses on an ethical focus on persons in how they tackle risk.
Then look at the next line:
Human-centered innovation places human experience at the heart of technological advancement.
No! Human-centredness is NOT at the heart of technology. If you want to put humans first, then don’t frame their purpose as centred in technology but as focused on them.
Person-centric thinking puts the needs of efficiency, systems and technology last, not first.
The article then goes on to describe its non-innovation as a philosophy. It is not! The real philosophy (methodology) in this article is hidden and not articulated. Yet, this is what Safety does. It declares slogans as ‘principles’ and the love of Technique (Ellul) as a philosophy. All this article does is hide its utilitarian philosophy (using humans as a utility for safety), which is of course unethical (non-disclosure). The language of ‘principles’ is now thrown about safety (with no connection to an ethic) so much that it has been made meaningless (https://safetyrisk.net/declaring-what-is-by-what-isnt-hop-as-traditional-safety/). Slogans are not principles (https://safetyrisk.net/the-seduction-of-slogans-in-safety-2/).
The foundation for calling anything an ‘innovation’ demands a new methodology and method (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/innovation). There is nothing new in this article. This is no different than the HOP Conference last year that focused on innovation (https://www.safetyinnovation.org/) with no methodology or method. Regurgitating a few slogans or using a few expletives in a podcast (punk rock safety) is NOT innovation. None of this involves any transformation of systems, methods or a focus away from objects and systems. Indeed, the Safety Science Innovation Lab now endorses zero as a moral goal (https://safetyrisk.net/zero-is-an-immoral-goal/). Just more traditional safety.
The language of this article is such a mish mash of safety goop. So, this so called ‘Human-centered innovation’ is not just a philosophy, it’s also a ‘domain’, as if somehow this idea is in a political realm??? So, what and who ‘rules’ safety? WE all know, Safety rules safety!
Then it is called a ‘comprehensive methodology’ (which it is not) and again is anchored to technology and business.
The contradictions then flow about the layout and design of a factory floor and if you click on the link what is it all about? Objects! It’s all about hazards not persons. It’s all traditional safety stuff, all about accidents and Technique. There is nothing about persons, relationships, ethical practice, social psychology or engagement in this link. It’s all about technology and hazards. This is what Safety does so well, it produces propaganda and marketing about what it is not.
The article then progresses on to a ‘problem-solving method’ that is NOT a method. Then a weird line about ‘understanding people’ yet, the article is not about people. It’s about how technology can be used for safety. It’s all about ‘curating the journey a user has with a system or service’. Yep, just plain olde ‘human factors’ on rinse and repeat. Nothing new, nothing innovative. Just more safety marketing using different language as if propaganda has meaning or slogans are principles. Even the language of ‘empathy for humans’ is anchored to ‘safety measures’, ‘performing tasks’ and, ‘workflow’. Just more traditional safety.
Then we get to ‘principles’ that are NOT principles, called a ‘bedrock’, just demonstrating even more that Safety has no idea what a principle is or has a clue of ethics. Wow, and if you want to go further you can download a paper on ‘New Strategies Revolutionizing Worker Safety’! and, what is this about? Yes, you guessed it ‘advances in technology and product offerings’! More Technqiue!
By the time we get to ‘user research, foundations of insight’, the whole article is awash with technology, safety systems and process. This makes what follows just more Technique (Ellul) to gain information about persons-as-users. There is no mention about how to engage people ethically, the politics of work (as if it was a domain) or the moral meaning of work, it’s just more safety.
Sections follow on teams being ‘harnessed’ (good olde Dekker language) which is just more about controls. Then a section on knowledge and culture that has nothing to do with either knowledge or culture. This includes discussion of ‘education’ that has nothing to do with education, ‘safety innovation training’ that is not innovative and ‘culture shift initiatives’ that have nothing to do with culture. And what would be the purpose of these ‘culture shift initiatives’? Yes, not persons or ethical practice but, an ‘organizational culture towards one that values safety’.
By the time you get to the end of this article you know you are in gobbledygook land. It states:
Human-centered innovation is more than just a means to an end; it’s a philosophy that can lead to a safer, more engaged, and more productive workforce.
It’s denial of its hidden philosophy (Utilitarianism) and humans-in-utility with technological systems, is exactly what this article is about.
Whilst it claims to put ‘workers’ (note not persons) first it does not. Look at the language of the text. It’s all about merging humans with technology for a productive safety outcome. But there more. You can also tune into a podcast about all of this called ‘Hard Hats and Heart’, which of course places the focus on PPE and empathy but nothing about: ethical engagement, the use of political power, moral meaning, engagement or relationships.
The language of ‘expertise’ is also used in this article yet, none of the presenters have any expertise other than safety, a perfect way to keep the echo chamber listening to itself. Safety talking to Safety about safety. Just more of the same, just like engineers teaching ethics, culture and anthropology.
All of this is just more marketing and spin for human factors safety that has been about for 30 years. All sponsored by ‘safeopedia’. So, just look on the safeopedia website to get a good idea of what innovation look like? It’s Nowhere! It’s all about traditional Safety talking to Safety about safety. The framing of the website is traditional safety: objects, hazards, objects, PPE, objects, safety policy, objects, hazards, prevention, accidents, permits, objects and hazards.
However, there is a positive and practical alternative.
If you actually want to explore a well-articulated methodology and method in tackling risk, you can find this here: https://spor.com.au/ or you can read any of the free books here: https://www.humandymensions.com/shop/
If you look at the work of SPoR, you will observe a very clearly articulated philosophy and practical positive methods (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/spor-and-semiotics/) for how to be person-centric in an ethical approach to risk. The focus of this methodology is the ethical practice of persons in tackling risk. The purpose is not about technology, Technique or safety outcomes but rather how persons engage with each other in how they tackle risk. Here you will find a comprehensive understanding of culture and how such an understanding makes a difference to personhood at work.
Do you have any thoughts? Please share them below