Design

How I designed it

Initially I wondered why it was that we as a society have tremendous ability and knowledge and yet cannot “control” human behaviour. We can build a station in space, we can technologically create tiny computers with incredible memory and functions and medical science has advanced dramatically over the last 20 years or so. There is a quantum leap in our knowledge every few years. We have identified the cause of many injuries and illnesses but still seem unable to stop them from occurring. We know that smoking is bad for our health, and bad for our health systems and economies, but we cannot ban smoking entirely. I know this is a simplistic view of things, but that is just the point. It should be simple, because simple things tend to work better than complicated things.

Similarly, in an occupational setting, we know the major common mechanisms of back injury and we have known the basics of safe manual handling for many years, but still people working in industries sustain back injuries and suffer other musculoskeletal symptoms. This was the basis of the model i.e. that people generally do not want to suffer preventable work-related injuries (despite some people believing the opposite due to compensation systems), but they still happen. Often they are due to external issues – unrealistic deadlines and production schedules, inappropriate equipment and task design and a belief that it is possible to complete the job regardless. There is also an element of management not fully understanding “how” a task is truly completed – the “do as I say, and I don't need to know all the details of what it is that you do” syndrome.

All of this had me wondering the big question of why it occurs, and how to explain it. So I worked on the model. Originally it was just to explain occupational health and safety. I was challenged to develop it into something more, to think bigger and more globally, so that it would apply to other areas and fields of endeavour.

Initially, the model was just about systems (informal, imposed and enforced). That was strong, explained some things, but left a lot out. Systems need people to use them; otherwise developing any system is a waste of time. And people need to use systems to be more efficient and effective. So I needed to put people into the systems model. People working or doing anything without an appropriate system is inefficient. That became the second triangle (novice, experienced, and expert).

The model now consisted of two triangles that explained systems and people and it suggested how they fitted together (and why they didn't became more obvious). The model still lacked something. People use systems and systems are developed by people, and systems almost have their own energy and persona. The integration of the people and systems became the third triangle, and this helped to explain why and how systems work or fall apart, how we can be efficient and focussed and how we sometimes are not able to use existing systems or why we are not efficient and focused. The integration of systems and people is also about the fact that we sometimes behave at different levels to our preferred or usual level, how we sometimes use systems that are not the most appropriate for our needs or for the desired outcome, and why others cannot understand why we don't “get” what is required in some situations.