2017 Visions Conference Presentation Presented by Sara Pazell

1. 1 | P a g e
©2017 Sara Pazell, Viva! Health at Work
A Human Asset Action Plan (HAAPy)
Transforming (operational, quality, and safety) leadership to the realm of design
(This concept was presented at SIA Visions 2017, 22 May, Toowoomba, QLD)
We talk about the development of a positive corporate leadership culture, sustainable business
performance, safety leadership, inclusivity, diversity, health, and wellbeing. We assume this will occur
while work is performed in a safe manner. Zero fatalities – thank you very much. The challenge: this all
fizzles out if it is all talk, no action.
What is the plan to transform the “corporate speak” into effective processes and deliverable outcomes?
From the perspective of human factors and ergonomics, design-based intervention provides for a
cohesive and constructive means to achieve great things in a work team. Design that transforms our daily
work is highly meaningful. Design in which workers (at all levels) are involved in the design process is
engaging, rewarding, and more likely to achieve inclusive, well-considered, resilient outcomes. Design
that is human-centred, facilitated by someone skilled in the knowledge and application of design strategy
that optimises human performance (such as a human factors specialist / certified professional
ergonomist), is likely to promote productivity and health, and prevent illness or injury (see: Pazell, 2016a).
Design, in this manner, pays dividends (E.g. Burgess-Limerick, 2010). A new international standard
advances this idea of evidence-based action through human-centred design, ISO 27500:2016, the Human-
Centred Organisation. The fundamental premise: our workers are the lifeline of our business and
industry thrives when our people do, too. Humans are assets.

2. 2 | P a g e
©2017 Sara Pazell, Viva! Health at Work
The Human Asset Manager
An asset manager typically manages capital expenditure. The financial decisions associated with
acquisition, value appraisal, maintenance costs and procedures, storage, and divestiture of large
equipment, are attributed significant priority in a business. However, once purchased, there is a limit to
the price elasticity of these physical assets. After purchase, raw supplies, and repairs, the most significant
change to our business productivity is labour: the valued-added per hour worked. In capital intensive
industries, such as mining, construction, and transportation, small changes to labour input and value-
added output results in comparatively large changes in a measure of productivity (e.g. Syed et al, 2013).
If just one percent (1%) of productivity gains could be achieved throughout the lifecycle of a quarry, mine,
or large construction project, it is likely that a significant percentage of the initial start-up costs may be
recouped (e.g. up to 10%) (Pazell, 2016b). In the realm of office design, Hedge (2012) proposes that 92%
of a building’s costs is related to its occupants. A one percent (1%) increase in labour input / productivity
is equivalent to 100% of the energy costs (Hedge, 2012). Our human assets have the most flex – price
elasticity – in our business to influence productivity and, thus, achieve business sustainability.
If we recognise our humans as assets, who, then, is the Human Asset Manager in our business?
Our human resource manager? Wellness coordinator? Safety advisor? Operations manager or team
leader? The c-suite senior executives? It is easy to see how the people in each of these roles may
influence worker well-being, yet they are unlikely provided the opportunity to interact with the worker,
throughout the employment lifecycle, to the degree required to optimise performance. Should we
assume that our workers will work it out themselves, without the governance and resource to catalyse
their very best performance?
The value proposition of human factors & ergonomics: It pays dividends!
A very practical way to pay dividends to the business is to design, and re-design, fundamental work tasks
(tools, equipment, systems, or the environment) to improve productivity. The element of co-design
inherent in a participative ergonomics process enables workers to take ownership and invest in the
adaptation or innovation of activities that are meaningful to them. A task re-design for an off-the-shelf
product-use change may result in an investment payback in under two weeks and an annual cost benefit
of almost half an employee’s wage (e.g. Pazell et al, 2016c). A program that reflects years of committed
re-design activity can win industry awards and achieve significant reductions in injuries and industrial
claims (e.g. Pazell et al, 2016d). A systematic approach to human-centred design and appropriate risk
management, such as in the Australian defence industry, may return investments of 40 – 60: 1 (Burgess-
Limerick, 2010).

3. 3 | P a g e
©2017 Sara Pazell, Viva! Health at Work
Thought – Language – Action
Specialists in neuro-leadership and cognitive behavioural therapy have long recognised the power of
language. It reflects thoughts and, conversely, may influence thinking. In this vein, if we are going to
leverage our workforce to become change-agents of good work design, architects of their own task re-
design, it is worth investigating the thought and language required to inspire innovation.
Imagine if we changed the language arising from industrial engineering, the workplace “control”. Control
is synonymous with containment, dominance, and restraint. How does that inspire our people? The
hierarchy of control arising from industrial engineering has historically provided guidance in the priority
actions to be undertaken for hazard management. The argument prevails that the most effective method
of hazard management is the undertaking of top-tier controls, from elimination to re-engineering.
However, what would happen if we followed this guidance, but applied an appreciative approach (e.g.
Cooperrider & Whitney, 1999) and changed the language to inspire creative thought?
Instead of top-tier hazard management actions:
Hierarchy of Control: eliminate, substitute, or engineering control
We toy with this language:
Design Platform: radical departure, proxy (or surrogacy), recreate
(Please, entertain more ideas and different language. It is simply my intention to provoke expansive
thought).
If we want action, fun, and engagement, we need to inspire, excite, and enthuse, and be imaginative
ourselves.
In my research, I am exploring this idea:
To achieve good work (re)design, traditional hazard and risk management practice may provide
necessary but insufficient conditions for the nomination of tasks for design review
The actions that we can take include 3 levels:
1. Formalise and improve our system of recognition of design opportunities. For example, one may
expand the identification of near misses to capture “near rights”, too (modified work practice
that largely occurs “under the radar” and unreported, see Pazell, 2016e). This may mean, also,
improved practice of hazard identification and risk determination.
2. Decision-making support systems. This includes predictive analytics; simulation, visualisation, and
modeling; and the establishment of lead indicators and positive performance measures that
support design-based strategy in the workplace.
3. Evolution of design practice, including the development of design philosophy, strategy, resource,
skill, and capacity.

4. 4 | P a g e
©2017 Sara Pazell, Viva! Health at Work
With creative play, and serious design strategy, we can learn to “play” again at work; imagine, design,
prototype, be a little clumsy, make mistakes, evolve, and continually improve. You may arrive with some
seriously good results. I look forward to learning about your good work (re)design stories.
---
Sara Pazell is an occupational advisor in human-factors ergonomics. She is a confirmed PhD student with
the University of Queensland and her topic of study is, “Good work design: Strategies to embed human-
centred design in organisations”.
---
References
Burgess-Limerick, R. (2010). Human Systems Integration is Worth the Money and Effort! The Argument for the Implementation
of Human Systems Integration Processes in Defence Capability Acquisition. Department of Defence: Commonwealth of
Australia.
Cooperrider, D.L., & Whitney, D. (1999). Appreciative inquiry: Collaborating for change. San Francisco: Berrett Koehler.
Hedge, A. (2012), Adapted from a 2010 speaking engagement, InDesign Live: A professional resource for the design curious.
http://www.indesignlive.com/report/Exploring-Green-Ergonomics
International Standards Organisation (ISO) (2016). Human-Centred Organisations. ISO Standard 27500:2016.
Pazell, S. (2016a). The Application & Value of Human Factors & Ergonomics. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/application-value-
human-factors-ergonomics-sara-pazell
Pazell, S. (2016b). Presentation: Total Worker Health: Valuing our Human Asset. 15th
Annual Quarrying Safety & Health Seminar
Brisbane, QLD.
Pazell, S., Burgess-Limerick, R., & Horberry, T., (2016c). Case study: Process and outcome review of a participative ergonomics
project in an asphalt production plant. Human Factors Ergonomics Association of Australia HFESA 2016 Annual Conference
Proceedings, November 2016: Gold Coast, QLD. https://www.ergonomics.org.au/documents/item/80
Pazell, S., Burgess-Limerick, R., Horberry, T., Dennis, G., & Wakeling, C. (2016d). RIO TINTO WEIPA: The value proposition of good
work design. Human Factors Ergonomics Association of Australia HFESA 2016 Annual Conference Proceedings, November
2016: Gold Coast, QLD. http://ergonomics.uq.edu.au/HFESA_2016_proceedings/Blank_files/Pazell2.pdf
Pazell, S. (2016e). A Novel Way to Hit the Mark: Shifting the Focus from Near Miss to “Near Rights”.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/novel-way-hit-mark-shifting-target-from-near-miss-rights-sara-pazell
Syed, A., Grafton, Q., & Kalirajan, K. (2013). Productivity in the Australian Mining Sector: March 2013 (Discussion Paper Series:
13.01). Bureau of Research and Energy Economics.