Today companies developing a safe system of work can control at 99% hazardous situations, in the workplace environment and the process. However, statistically it is that last 1% that eludes organisations. Very few companies can guarantee they can ensure and control the human factor and rarer still can control the behaviour of their personnel. Some methodologies dealing with Behavior Based Safety (BBS) have demonstrated its limitation because of the difficulty of implementing such a program and then follow-up programs. In addition, some companies who have tried to implement a BBS approach have found there has been no real benefit to the organisation and the effects and improvements have been non-sustainable.

 

 

We at ACF S&E combine the psychological approach and our SUSTAIN + © methodology based on ARTICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI)  to initiate real, practical Behaviour Based Safety delivered with positive effects and long-lasting change.

 

​

WHY SUSTAIN + ?

​

1st Finding: Social, health, safety, economic, organisational, societal and environmental factors are at the crossroads of multiple requirements that the manager must take into account.

2nd Finding: Social pressure, and strong societal environment.

3rd Finding: Systems whose ‘classical’ tools reach their limits generating "non-qualities" and therefore costs are incurred for the companies.

4th Finding: When analyzing the root cause of the MIA Major Industrial Accidents we can systematically highlight the human factor mistake as faulty technology played a surprisingly small part in many of the scrutinized disasters.

 

Conclusion:

The need to innovate and optimize the performance of organisations by bringing new solutions, without neglecting health and safety but to target and improve human behaviour as well.

 

FOUNDING PRINCIPLES

 

The systemic approach and strategic planning tools based on artificial intelligence  are used as decision support catalysts for "3C" contexts: 3C = Complex - Costly – Conflictual.

 

The ability to work on the human factor while developing the performance of SUSTAIN + ã within your company make this approach by the ACF S&E group highly innovative for the management of health and safety at work. Using a group workshop of approximately 10 people facilitated by experts in strategic planning this dynamic and interactive process can address the problems causing concern for the stakeholders and bring about unifying and consensual solutions that have a significant and long-lasting effect on the company.

 

 

It is the entire holistic process of SUSTAIN +, developing company performance bespoke to the organisations needs, improving human behavior amongst employees that will support decision-making and ultimately solve the most complex multifactorial situations.

 

Solutions will be fast, efficient and lasting but above all, indisputable because they are the result of the stakeholders’ decision-making, therefore appropriate and applied by all. In addition to a systemic and strategic problem solving approach, we use a social psychology principle called ‘cognitive dissonance’ to minimise what is planned in theory and what is carried out in practise.

 

In social psychology, cognitive dissonance is a theory whereby a person who is confronted simultaneously with information, opinions, behaviors or beliefs which are conflicting and for the person experiencing those feelings in their immediate environment it produces unpleasant tension and discomfort. For example, as the year 2000 approached people around the world were very concerned about how their IT systems would cope and many predicted an IT blackout, that never happened as we entered the year 2000. This state, known as "cognitive dissonance", which is situated at the psychic level leads the person to develop unconscious strategies aimed at reducing dissonance and approaching the so-called "positive consonance" inverse state.

 

This theory was established in 1957 by the American psychologist Leon Festinger (1919-1989) to explain how the human being manages the tensions caused by incompatible elements. Cognitive dissonance theory suggests that we have an inner drive to hold all our attitudes and beliefs in harmony and avoid disharmony (or dissonance). According to Festinger, we hold many cognitions about the world and ourselves and when they clash a discrepancy is evoked, resulting in a state of tension known as cognitive dissonance. As the experience of dissonance is unpleasant we are motivated to reduce or eliminate it and achieve consonance (i.e. agreement). The reduction of cognitive dissonance consists in a modification of beliefs, opinions or attitudes and to bring them into line with information that is contradictory. The below examples show how a person might start that process of rationalisation.

 

​

The reduction of cognitive dissonance can be rationalised by demonstrating other such behaviours:

 

• Add consonant elements to justify dissonant behavior.

• Reinterpret the real to ensure that beliefs remain intact.

• Minimise the importance of dissonant elements.

• Do as if one of the dissonant events had not existed, forget them.

• Change one of the dissonant elements such as changing behavior or attitude.

 

The concept of cognitive dissonance is related to the fact that it is more difficult for an individual to correct ideas that have been acquired for a long time than to learn new ideas for which they do not yet have a model or system of representation. Therefore the ‘education’ of children is of equal importance for religions, for totalitarian political regimes and even for the major brands of consumer products.

Beliefs that are shared by a community become truths that cannot be questioned and therefore cannot be discussed. When facts go against these beliefs, it is counterproductive and sometimes even risky to fight them directly. It is more effective to engage in a dialogue that allows for questioning and then to awareness than it is to deliberately cause cognitive dissonance in an interlocutor.

 

​

Major industrial desaster example:

 

Industrial majors disaster have significant consequences that can be exacerbated by human failures. Likewise, the BP oil spill was caused, in part, by faulty technology, but also by the failure of safety protocols and so it is for most of the major industrial disasters (Chernobyl, Piper alpha, Bopal, Seveso,…)

When we analyse deeper the root cause of those MIA (Major Industrial Accidents), we can systematically highlight the human factor mistake as faulty technology, and it played a surprisingly small part in many of the scrutinized disasters. In reality, cognitive dissonance is mainly at the source of these unsafe acts. This is clearly demonstrated in the book by James William Martin ‘Unexpected Consequences’, Why The Things We Trust Fail (September 2011, Praeger)

 

The solution we provide is revolutionary in Behavior Based Safety (BBS). We use social psychology, organisational culture and ethics combined with strategic planning and advanced software tools. The outcome is outstanding as you can see from our testimonials. SUSTAIN + © methodology will assist and help your organisation swiftly to produce their own solution shared by all employees, reducing dramatically the unknown variables of human behavior.

 

We understand and recognise that best solutions for the organisations we serve and work with come from not some outside agency but from within your own company. Your best and most valued assets are the human factor.