Using Design Thinking To Improve Worker Safety in Manufacturing

Digital
Article
Technology & Operations
Using Design Thinking to

Improve Worker Safety in
Manufacturing
by Deepa Bachu
This article is licensed for your personal use. Further posting, copying, or distribution is not permitted. Copyright Harvard Business Publishing. All rights reserved. Please contact
customerservice@harvardbusiness.org or 800 988 0886 for additional copies.
HBR / Digital Article / Using Design Thinking to Improve Worker Safety in Manufacturing
…
Using Design Thinking to

Improve Worker Safety in
Manufacturing
by Deepa Bachu
Published on HBR.org / November 04, 2021 / Reprint H06NLT
Thomas Barwick/Getty Images
The Indian workforce boasts more than 450 million people, with

over 50 million employed in the manufacturing industry. Within this
vast and fast-moving economy, unsafe working conditions and unsafe
work practices pose a massive challenge. Government figures show
that work-related accidents, which are second only to road accidents,
killed at least 47,000 people in 2019 (and it should be noted that
many believe these numbers to be largely underreported at the national
level). Improving workforce safety is a priority for all responsible
Copyright © 2021 Harvard Business School Publishing. All rights reserved. 1
…
Indian organizations, even as they often struggle to balance safety and

productivity demands. Acknowledging that quandary, we wanted to
know whether new approaches to workplace safety and worker training
may be able to help keep more workers safe.
Our design thinking firm was hired by an Indian firm, ITC Limited,
which has a diversified presence across industries such as cigarettes
and tobacco products, consumer goods, hotels, packaging, paperboards,
specialty papers, and agribusiness. ITC has invested years of effort
and significant capital towards eliminating unsafe conditions and
benchmarking work practices against global best standards. But
progress was starting to slow. Their search for new ways to continue the
trend toward a safer workplace — ultimately one with a vision of zero
employee accidents — led them to our door. We discussed new ways
to think about this problem — from the behavioral side of workplace
safety, using design thinking.
Video Available Online

To view, please visit this article at HBR.org.
Why design thinking? ITC realized that while process improvements

and state of art infrastructure would help reduce accidents, these
interventions were not enough. Despite on-going safety assessments,
accessible standard operating procedures, frequent safety training
schedules, accidents still happened. Examples of these accidents
included improper handling of materials and chemicals, entrapment in
rotating machinery, and falling from heights. In conversations with our
firm that spanned several months, what emerged was the need to better
understand worker and manager attitudes and behaviors toward safety.
Specifically, ITC was interested in understanding:
…
1. Why workers might make unsafe choices even when they were aware
they could wind up hurt
2. Why unsafe working conditions were not actively reported by
workers and resolved by managers in a timely manner
The hope was that human-centered ethos of design thinking could help
reframe this problem in ways that regular process improvements alone
could not. We began our work in one of ITC’s largest factories and
focused on one integrated unit.
Developing a design thinking approach
Our firm used a blended research design, which is a combination of

qualitative and quantitative methods, in an effort to provide depth and
breadth on the complex topic of safety behavior. We began with safety
assessments in the form of a survey that workers and managers filled
out. If needed, we would assist team members in completing the survey.
Next, we used an approach we fondly call the sandwich method, which

included two rounds of interviews. In the first round of interviews,
we explored safety awareness and safe practices, as well as the level
of priority they associated with safety on the job. Then, we observed
managers and employees at work for many hours — while trying
to blend in so they wouldn’t feel like they were being watched. We
interviewed managers and workers again after this observation, when
we were able to better understand the differences between what they
were saying versus what they were actually doing. This also provided a
clearer view of factors like awareness, behavior, enforcement, employee
dynamics, and business priorities that influenced safety.
Next, we used attitude mapping, a visual technique that explores

instant associations made with words, images, and phrases. We asked
workers and managers to map how they think about unsafe acts in
…
their personal lives (like jumping off a running bus or running a red
traffic light). The associations they shared against each word helped
us better understand how workers and managers thought about safety
by evaluating their tolerance for different types of risky activities.
This allowed us to better understand the belief systems individuals
employ around safety prioritization, their attitudes and perceptions
towards safety and productivity, and the dynamics between different
organizational levels and stakeholders.
Equipped with this baseline understanding of attitudes toward safety,

we then experimented with behavioral nudges to see if they might help
workers make safer choices and help managers supervise workplace
safety more efficiently. For example, we experimented with a pre-
commitment behavioral nudge because when people actively commit
to a goal they are more likely to achieve it. To do this, we listed known
unsafe conditions on whiteboards, with managers committing to a date
for resolving the issue. This not only encouraged managers to achieve
their resolution dates, it encouraged workers to actively report unsafe
conditions.
When taking risks earns the respect of your peers
Our blended research design generated data from surveys, observation,

conversations, attitude mapping, and behavioral nudges. Our next task
was to synthesize that research to define the deep-rooted problems that
needed to be addressed and provide insights that would inspire and
inform solutions.
One insight we found was that when safety messaging was relegated
to the background, production and efficiency took precedence over
everything else in the minds of the workers and managers. Safety was
seen as the responsibility of management — true enough, but it also
requires good decision making at an individual manager and worker
…
level. Additionally, performing risky acts equated to a respected level

of expertise or experience amongst peers. In other words, people took
unsafe chances to impress other people. These were perceptions we and
ITC had to set about changing.
To start, we conducted boot camps on Design Thinking and Behavioral

Economics in order to allow managers to take ownership of new
approaches to worker safety. We wanted to shift the conversation
around worker safety to one where everyone holds the same
assumptions and starts from the same place. In the bootcamps,
managers were introduced to our methodology and the research
findings and insights. Working together, we co-created solutions to
overcome common problem areas.
For example, to keep safety messaging top of mind for workers and
managers, we designed safety tokens that someone could easily slip
in their pocket, for an active, tactile reminder to make safe choices
throughout the day. The workers picked up a token as they entered the
factory. At the end of the day the worker was asked to privately and
anonymously assess how safe they have been during the day by placing
their token in the box labelled “safe” or “unsafe.” The opportunity to
be reflective about their safety behavior made them more aware of the
safety messaging. Over time, we noticed fewer risky or unsafe behaviors
and the “safe” box had more safety tokens than the “unsafe box.”
We also made use of the pre-commitment nudge. We co-created a

solution with ITC that emphasized two-way accountability for safety.
Managers expected workers to not commit unsafe acts and workers
expected managers to fix unsafe conditions quickly. Each held the other
responsible, thereby creating two-way accountability. To do this, the
factory floor housed a list of reported unsafe conditions, including
status and, eventually, the date of resolution. Factory-wide safety
…
celebrations were held with senior management rewarding managers

and workers for showing safe behavior, for reporting unsafe conditions,
and for quickly resolving unsafe conditions. Over time, we saw workers
who took unsafe or risky chances to impress their peers now opting to
stay with safety guidelines.
And, as workers and managers began to understand the importance

of individual behavior in creating a safe workplace, they became the
biggest evangelists of how to adhere to and support safe practices.
Indicators of progress, but a long road ahead
The factory unit’s safety metrics began to improve in the two sections
selected for the pilot program. More unsafe conditions were being
reported by workers and managers were resolving those conditions
faster. Safety became everyone’s responsibility. These improvements
were important indicators in reducing the number of accidents.
Encouraged by these results we are expanding the solution across the
factory, modifying our solution design to new areas of specialty and
providing training as needed.
This wasn’t a small endeavor. Design thinking is an in-depth process

of research, ideation, and experimentation. It requires patience and
time to see improvement. Applying it to an issue as important as
worker safety required careful planning and the participation of many
individuals, which adds to the effort’s costs. But we found that
by better understanding worker assumptions and engaging in rapid
experimentation, this kind of behavioral work can be a potent tool to
make improvements to worker safety. Behaviors don’t change overnight
— but in this case, it is well worth the wait when it has the potential to
save lives.
…
Deepa Bachu is the Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer at

Pensaar Design.

Using Design Thinking To Improve Worker Safety in Manufacturing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Using Design Thinking To Improve Worker Safety in Manufacturing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digital

Technology & Operations

Using Design Thinking to

Using Design Thinking to

Thomas Barwick/Getty Images

The Indian workforce boasts more than 450 million people, with

Copyright © 2021 Harvard Business School Publishing. All rights reserved. 1

Indian organizations, even as they often struggle to balance safety and

Video Available Online

Why design thinking? ITC realized that while process improvements

Copyright © 2021 Harvard Business School Publishing. All rights reserved. 2

Developing a design thinking approach

Our firm used a blended research design, which is a combination of

Next, we used an approach we fondly call the sandwich method, which

Next, we used attitude mapping, a visual technique that explores

Copyright © 2021 Harvard Business School Publishing. All rights reserved. 3

Equipped with this baseline understanding of attitudes toward safety,

When taking risks earns the respect of your peers

Our blended research design generated data from surveys, observation,

Copyright © 2021 Harvard Business School Publishing. All rights reserved. 4

level. Additionally, performing risky acts equated to a respected level

To start, we conducted boot camps on Design Thinking and Behavioral

We also made use of the pre-commitment nudge. We co-created a

Copyright © 2021 Harvard Business School Publishing. All rights reserved. 5

celebrations were held with senior management rewarding managers

And, as workers and managers began to understand the importance

Indicators of progress, but a long road ahead

This wasn’t a small endeavor. Design thinking is an in-depth process

Copyright © 2021 Harvard Business School Publishing. All rights reserved. 6

Deepa Bachu is the Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer at

Copyright © 2021 Harvard Business School Publishing. All rights reserved. 7

You might also like