WARNING: For safety people, please read more than the headline!
Whilst some models are helpful they are never accurate. Models are symbols/myths that convey a semiotic purpose but in themselves ought not to be considered absolute. This is why we find metaphors and symbols helpful, neither are scientific or accurate but serve as a guide that is interpreted. Such is the myth of the HIERARCHY of Controls (HoC). It is just a reality of human language that we seek to clarify things by using something that it is not (metaphor). Try read Metaphors We Live By (Lakhoff and Johnson) (http://shu.bg/tadmin/upload/storage/161.pdf ) or the Rule of Metaphor by Paul Ricoeur.
The idea of a Hierarchy is just that, it creates the idea of a rank order, that is why the model of the HoC uses the metaphor of up-down to demonstrate importance and power, down to the so called ‘least powerful’ link in the controls. Like any linear model Safety seems to get a hold of myths like HoC and turn them into an absolute truth, when it is not. At best the model should be called a ‘Selection of Controls’and even then it is amazingly deficient. The HoC model is entirely focused on physical barriers, it’s all about objects. Nothing in the HoC myth gives one a clue to any social, psychological or cognitive factors associated with risk.
BTW, in SPoR myth and symbols are understood as the same thing. The flip side of the same coin. In the Social Psychology of Risk (SPoR) one learns to understand things semiotically and knows that models, colours and shapes communicate to the unconscious and are often much more powerful than text. Here’s a simple test:
So when did you look left? Probably after you first looked right. In semiotics we learn that images, models, shares, graphics, models and symbols have much more power than text. If you want to learn more about semiotics you can do the online module here: https://cllr.com.au/product/semoiotics-and-the-social-psychology-of-risk-unit-3/
So back to the HoC myth. Do a search for any HoC model and of course it falls for the favourite safety shape, the pyramid/triangle. Ah, doesn’t Safety love triangles and pyramids (https://safetyrisk.net/nonsense-curves-and-pyramids/ ).
So not only does the HOC model get portrayed as a HIERARCHY but this is reinforced with the psychology of colour and shape. So, combining all semiotic cues of shape, colour and order the HIERARCHY of controls gives the idea of rank order when there is none.
In SPoR we recommend a much broader and less hierarchical approach to tackling risk. It is a model that better understands the motivations and context of decision making and better matches response with context. See Figure 1. Selection of Controls.
Figure 1. Selection of Controls.
In the Selection of Controls Model much greater emphasis is placed upon the skills of the observer and the adaptability of response. For those who are familiar with the Workspace, Headspace, Groupspace model in SPoR there is an understanding that life is much more messy and disorderly than a hierarchy. The circular model doesn’t get drawn into the hierarchy/pyramidic myth but allows for one to see a much more interconnected way of tackling risk through an interconnectedness of factors and an interconnectedness of responses.
Like all models, it is not intended to be perfect but does attempt to help people get away from this linear mechanical myth that views controls are hierarchical and orderly.