The HSE has published a report authored by University of Liverpool and MBS on behavioural economics.
This is very welcome; the view of 'human error' in the safety community has been very limited, and this research may bring about a wider view of error. There is quite a sizeable collection of literature.
Surprising omissions include James Montier and Michael Mauboussin. Being academics, they do not seem to have a good handle on the range of decisions that affect safety (workplace = overalls + people not as bright as us), and the recommendations are the inevitable ones for more research rather than application.
Despite these limitations, it is an extremely welcome publication.
Showing posts with label regulation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label regulation. Show all posts
Sunday, 3 January 2010
Sunday, 13 December 2009
HCD for dementia care
Gerry Robinson is doing two programmes for BBC2 on re-designing dementia care. The first one was wonderful and is on iplayer. The second one is 15th Dec 2009.
The revolution in dementia care is understanding the patient experience and looking at care from the patient's point of view, using an activity logging approach called care mapping. Apparently this is a radical thing to do. So it is, in terms of the' service provision' community.
The regulator, of course, is concerned with box-ticking and paperwork rather than the Quality In Use of care. It would not be hard to adapt HCD standards and apply them to service delivery such as dementia care, to the immense benefit of all parties.
He shows that good care is attractive to relatives and helps the bottom line in privately-run care homes.
The revolution in dementia care is understanding the patient experience and looking at care from the patient's point of view, using an activity logging approach called care mapping. Apparently this is a radical thing to do. So it is, in terms of the' service provision' community.
The regulator, of course, is concerned with box-ticking and paperwork rather than the Quality In Use of care. It would not be hard to adapt HCD standards and apply them to service delivery such as dementia care, to the immense benefit of all parties.
He shows that good care is attractive to relatives and helps the bottom line in privately-run care homes.
Tuesday, 25 August 2009
Boundaries of acceptable performance
Paul Shanahan congratulated me on my 'courage' (cf. 'Yes Minister') in using the original version of Rasmussen's 1997 contours of safe operation diagram. He was right, the diagram is very hard to communicate. Rob Miles has used Venn diagrams in a way that complemented Rasmussen's contours, and so I have devised some Miles-Rasmussen diagrams to illustrate the effects of technology, management and regulation.
In the first instance, the operating envelope is bounded by the limits of Crew Resource Management, business performance, and safety (plus environment and security). Note that this last limit is blurred, unlike the others. Going outside the operating envelope results in unsafe operation, crew overload or unacceptable business performance.
The sales pitch for technology
The sales pitch for technology is that it extends the boundary for safety, giving an extension to the operating envelope, and "look how small the unsafe operation area is now". This is of course nonsense.
Technology is probably neutral, and can be visualised as just making the whole space bigger. This does not mean that actual operation is safer; it might stay at the boundary of safe operation, but with improved business performance.
Generative management
Generative management (cf. Ron Westrum) does increase the operating envelope; this picture ties in with Rob Miles' diagrams showing that good management does not see safety and business performance opposing each other.
Zealous regulation
Tightening regulation (with everything else staying the same) leads to a smaller operating envelope and a big increase in the potential for 'violations'.
There is some more to come on how 'nudge' regulation could be made to work via the internet. Not today, though.
In the first instance, the operating envelope is bounded by the limits of Crew Resource Management, business performance, and safety (plus environment and security). Note that this last limit is blurred, unlike the others. Going outside the operating envelope results in unsafe operation, crew overload or unacceptable business performance.
The sales pitch for technology
The sales pitch for technology is that it extends the boundary for safety, giving an extension to the operating envelope, and "look how small the unsafe operation area is now". This is of course nonsense.
Technology is probably neutral, and can be visualised as just making the whole space bigger. This does not mean that actual operation is safer; it might stay at the boundary of safe operation, but with improved business performance.
Generative management
Generative management (cf. Ron Westrum) does increase the operating envelope; this picture ties in with Rob Miles' diagrams showing that good management does not see safety and business performance opposing each other.
Zealous regulation
Tightening regulation (with everything else staying the same) leads to a smaller operating envelope and a big increase in the potential for 'violations'.
There is some more to come on how 'nudge' regulation could be made to work via the internet. Not today, though.
Monday, 24 August 2009
Vorsprung durch Technic
Fifty years on, CP Snow's 'Two Cultures' is alive and well. Technology is too important to be left to the technologists. It is also too important to be left to people with no knowledge and blind faith in technology = progress.
This post by Leg-Iron at Old Holborn is really scary, and well worth reading (it is short). The ease with which DNA evidence can be faked undermines the complete faith that people have in it.
For those too young to know CP Snow, the following quote may help.
"A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative."
C. P. Snow, 1959 Rede Lecture entitled "The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution"
This post by Leg-Iron at Old Holborn is really scary, and well worth reading (it is short). The ease with which DNA evidence can be faked undermines the complete faith that people have in it.
For those too young to know CP Snow, the following quote may help.
"A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative."
C. P. Snow, 1959 Rede Lecture entitled "The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution"
Friday, 21 August 2009
Regulatory capture and Quality In Use
The Baseline Scenario has a great post on a research brief on the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, which includes this gem:
"Since protecting large banks at the expense of consumers is the current goal of the regulatory structure, other goals such as collecting data on actual experiences of consumers (something researchers have a difficult time finding, and have to use poor substitutes like aggregate consumption diaries), having in-depth knowledge locally on scene, and fighting regulatory arbitrage among the current 11 agencies that investigate this material fall by the wayside."
Following the credit crunch, it will be interesting to see if the interest in regulation and its absence spreads to other sectors. More on this in future posts.
"Since protecting large banks at the expense of consumers is the current goal of the regulatory structure, other goals such as collecting data on actual experiences of consumers (something researchers have a difficult time finding, and have to use poor substitutes like aggregate consumption diaries), having in-depth knowledge locally on scene, and fighting regulatory arbitrage among the current 11 agencies that investigate this material fall by the wayside."
Following the credit crunch, it will be interesting to see if the interest in regulation and its absence spreads to other sectors. More on this in future posts.
Service from ISPs and mobile phone operators. Do we just give up?
Quality of service has not been a factor in OFCOMs regulation of mobile phones and ISPs. Accordingly, this has not been a factor of concern for most providers.
From a user point of view, it is almost impossible to know what the provider would be like until you are tied up into a contract. There is advice from ADSLguide for broadband, but it is still hard to decide. From my own experience, there are now no mobile phone operators with decent customer service, following the offshoring and collapse of the once-wonderful Virgin Mobile.
OFCOM has looked at Quality of Service, and set up a comparison website, which seems to be completely useless.
OFCOM says that price is the most important factor, but recognises that Quality of Service is also important. Price is something that can be compared before a purchase decision, while Quality In Use is much harder to get information on until it is too late.
In June, OFCOM decided to withdraw topcomm.
Does this mean that it is official that mobile and ISP service will always be cr*p? Or, is there hope that OFCOM might be interested in hearing about Human-Centred Design, Quality In Use, and the established means that exist for providing assurance?
From a user point of view, it is almost impossible to know what the provider would be like until you are tied up into a contract. There is advice from ADSLguide for broadband, but it is still hard to decide. From my own experience, there are now no mobile phone operators with decent customer service, following the offshoring and collapse of the once-wonderful Virgin Mobile.
OFCOM has looked at Quality of Service, and set up a comparison website, which seems to be completely useless.
OFCOM says that price is the most important factor, but recognises that Quality of Service is also important. Price is something that can be compared before a purchase decision, while Quality In Use is much harder to get information on until it is too late.
In June, OFCOM decided to withdraw topcomm.
Does this mean that it is official that mobile and ISP service will always be cr*p? Or, is there hope that OFCOM might be interested in hearing about Human-Centred Design, Quality In Use, and the established means that exist for providing assurance?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
