Things gone wrong
One of the simplest ways to improve performance is to stop things from going wrong. If you can change people’s behaviour and remove errors, defects or accidents, then performance will improve. It doesn’t matter if you work in a bank, a supermarket or collect bins for a living. Fewer errors equals better performance.
The process improvement guys have a simple solution to this. They call it error proofing. The idea is that you should make things easy to get right and difficult to get wrong.
My favourite example is the three pin plug. Every day I mess about with 240 volts of electricity — comfortably enough to kill me — with absolute impunity. The system is designed to be safe.
So improving performance is easy. Find out what goes wrong routinely, then do something to stop it.
Error proofing doesn’t always work
Road safety is a good example of system where many have tried to change behaviour and stop things going wrong. There are lots of examples of error proofing, for example:
- Anti-lock braking systems that reduce the frequency of accidents
- Cycling helmets that reduce the severity of accidents
During the 1980’s Aschenbrenner and Biehl carried out a study into the effectiveness of ABS. They followed a fleet of taxicabs in Munich. As this was the 1980s ABS wasn’t wide-spread. Some of the taxis were fitted with the innovation and others had conventional braking systems. Apart from that the cars were the same.
What they discovered was that the crash rates for the cars with ABS were marginally worse (though not statistically so) than those without. I.e. the error proofed vehicles were no safer to ride in.
In 1998 Rodgers undertook a study of cycling accidents, working his way through the accident statistics of 8 million U.S. cyclists. He found that:
Bicycle-related fatalities are positively and significantly associated with increased helmet use
Once again the error proofing hadn’t worked.
Bad behaviour
There is a theory, with the tantalising name of risk compensation. It suggests that people adjust their behaviour depending on the amount of risk they perceive.
The riskier a situation appears the more carefully we behave.
The opposite is also true:
- The taxi drivers felt safer, so took more risks
- The car drivers near the cyclists thought them less vulnerable, so took more risks
Why does this matter?
If you want to put in place systems that stop your staff from making mistakes then you have two options:
- Build safer systems – make it easy for your staff to get it right
- Increase the perceived risk – make your staff more cautious
A third example
In the UK the proportion of adults who smoke has dropped significantly since the 1970’s. Assuming smoking counts as a mistake (and as one of those who has quit I can tell you I think it is) this is a successful case of error reduction.
How has it happened? There have been lots of interventions and I can’t tell you which have been most successful but they fall into both camps:
Build safer systems
- Sell e-cigarettes
- Ban smoking in public places
- Raise taxes
Increase the perceived risk
- Put graphic images of smoking related diseases on packages
- Replace the branding with not so subliminal messages “Smoking can cause a slow and painful death”
- Invest in no holds bared advertising
If you want to stop things going wrong
Then both approaches have to be worth a try.
If you enjoyed this post click here to receive the next.
Read another opinion
Image by Patrik M. Loeff
Hi James, agree both approaches are worth a try. Although ‘increasing the perceived risk’ in my view can lead to a culture of excuses and covering up errors, rather than a genuine uptick in performance.
A very good point Anish. I guess whatever you do will be wrong, so maybe a little test and learn is worth a try.