It has become a numbers game
People complete observations to meet a target. Nothing changes on the ground.
Cette page a été traduite automatiquement et peut contenir des erreurs.
LFNW changes what your observers focus on, the questions they ask, and how your organization learns.
Behavioral observations reduce risk when observers focus on the conditions that make safe work difficult. Learning from Normal Work changes what observers look for, the questions they ask, and how the organization acts on what they find. Observers learn to recognize error traps, and each observation feeds a fix to the condition that produced the risk.
People complete observations to meet a target. Nothing changes on the ground.
"Unsafe act," "PPE," "housekeeping." Nothing specific enough to drive a decision.
They perform differently when watched and go back to normal when the observer leaves.
The program corrects the person without addressing the conditions that made the behavior rational.
Popular belief
So the logical response is to watch people, count what they do wrong, and correct them.
What actually happens
So the useful response is to understand the constraints and address the system that created them.
Most of what gets labeled "unsafe behavior" is a rational adaptation to conditions the organization created: time pressure, missing tools, or procedures that do not match the task. A standard observation misses this because the observer is watching the person, not the system.
When you shift from counting behaviors to understanding constraints, the program starts producing information you can act on.
What the observer asks
What the data tells you
What workers experience
Adaptations to operational constraints
People adjust because the plan, the tools, or the time do not match the job.
Organizational factors behind those constraints
Procurement, scheduling, and procedure decisions made months earlier that now shape what is possible at the workstation.
Operational dilemmas
Situations where every option involves a trade-off the procedure does not acknowledge.
The gap between planned work and real work
How the job was designed versus how it actually happens, every day.
Worker understanding shaped by their situation
What the person knew, what tools they had, and what constraints they were managing when they made the decision the observer later called "unsafe."
VP / HSE Director
You see a compliance score that tells you nothing about where the next incident is coming from.
You see the four specific conditions driving risk at your highest-exposure site.
HSE Manager
Your data says "95% safe" and you cannot write a corrective action from it.
Your data names specific constraints you can trace to an organizational decision and act on this week.
Supervisor
Workers perform for your clipboard and revert to normal when you leave.
Workers tell you what the job actually looks like because the questions you ask changed.
For the program to produce different results, the system around the observer needs to change as well.
A conversation to understand your current program and whether this approach is relevant.
A facilitated session to introduce the approach to the people who own the observation program.
Your team updates the process, templates, training, data analysis, and KPIs with our guidance.
The people who need to approve the changes are aligned before deployment.
Test the upgraded program at one site or with one team before scaling.
A deployment plan with ongoing support to roll out across the organization.
Behavioural observations are having little impact on results and the data is not providing valuable insights.
I am uncovering safety, quality, and operational issues I have never seen before that I can now begin to address.
No. Your process, templates, and KPIs get updated rather than replaced. The system your people know stays in place. It starts asking different questions and producing different data.
Yes. The upgraded program still identifies unsafe behaviors, but it also captures the conditions that made the behavior rational. Your recommendations address the system, and the same behavior is less likely to recur.
Traditional programs assume unsafe behavior causes accidents, so they watch, count, and correct. This program is built on the observation that most unsafe behavior is an adaptation to constraints in the system. Understanding those constraints gives you data you can act on at an organizational level.
Yes. You can start with one team or one site and expand from there.
Yes. The learning conversation approach surfaces quality and operational efficiency problems alongside safety risks. The constraints driving unsafe behavior are often the same ones driving quality defects and productivity losses.
Pricing depends on scale and the number of people involved. Minimum group of 10, with per-person cost decreasing for larger groups. We accept GBP, USD, and EUR.
The full program breakdown, including the redesign approach and outcomes.
Télécharger la brochureIndiquez-nous où l'envoyer et le téléchargement commencera immédiatement.
Merci. Le téléchargement va commencer et nous allons vous rediriger vers la page.
Regarder la rediffusionDes analyses mensuelles sur le leadership en matière de sécurité, la gestion des risques et l'apprentissage proactif, ainsi que des actualités concernant nos formations, nos outils et nos événements.
Merci de vous être abonné. Vous recevrez nos nouvelles chaque mois.
Prefer us on Google Search to see more of our articles in your results.