The James Reason Swiss Cheese Failure Model in 300 Seconds

James Reason Swiss Cheese Model. BMJ, 2000 Mar 18:320(7237): 768-770
James Reason Swiss Cheese Model. Source: BMJ, 2000 Mar 18:320(7237): 768-770

This week I’m at the Cardiff pilot of Practical Strategies for Learning from Failure (#LFFdigital), explaining the Swiss Cheese Failure Model in 300 seconds (5 minutes).

In the event of failure (ha ha ha, I couldn’t resist that), this is what I’m aiming to cover….

The Swiss Cheese Model of Accident Causation (to give it the full name), was developed by Professor James T. Reason at the University of Manchester about 25 years ago. The original 1990 paper,“The Contribution of Latent Human Failures to the Breakdown of Complex Systems”, published in the transactions of The Royal Society of London, clearly identifies these are complex human systems, which is important.

Well worth reading is the British Medical Journal (BMJ), March 2000 paper, ‘Human error: models and management’. This paper gives an excellent explanation of the model, along with the graphic I’ve used here.

The Swiss Cheese Model, my 300 second explanation:

  • Reason compares Human Systems to Layers of Swiss Cheese (see image above),
  • Each layer is a defence against something going wrong (mistakes & failure).
  • There are ‘holes’ in the defence – no human system is perfect (we aren’t machines).
  • Something breaking through a hole isn’t a huge problem – things go wrong occasionally.
  • As humans we have developed to cope with minor failures/mistakes as a routine part of life (something small goes wrong, we fix it and move on).
  • Within our ‘systems’ there are often several ‘layers of defence’ (more slices of Swiss Cheese).
  • You can see where this is going…..
  • Things become a major problem when failures follow a path through all of the holes in the Swiss Cheese – all of the defence layers have been broken because the holes have ‘lined up’.
Source: Energy Global Oilfield Technology

Who uses it? The Swiss Cheese Model has been used extensively in Health Care, Risk Management, Aviation, and Engineering. It is very useful as a method to explaining the concept of cumulative effects.

The idea of successive layers of defence being broken down helps to understand that things are linked within the system, and intervention at any stage (particularly early on) could stop a disaster unfolding. In activities such as petrochemicals and engineering it provides a very helpful visual tool for risk management. The graphic from Energy Global who deal with Oilfield Technology, helpfully puts the model into a real context.

Other users of the model have gone as far as naming each of the Slices of Cheese / Layers of Defence, for example:

  • Organisational Policies & Procedures
  • Senior Management Roles/Behaviours
  • Professional Standards
  • Team Roles/Behaviours
  • Individual Skills/Behaviours
  • Technical & Equipment

What does this mean for Learning from Failure?  In the BMJ paper Reason talks about the System Approach and the Person Approach:

  • Person Approach – failure is a result of the ‘aberrant metal processes of the people at the sharp end’; such as forgetfulness, tiredness, poor motivation etc. There must be someone ‘responsible’, or someone to ‘blame’ for the failure. Countermeasures are targeted at reducing this unwanted human behaviour.
  • System Approach – failure is an inevitable result of human systems – we are all fallible. Countermeasures are based on the idea that “we cannot change the human condition, but we can change the conditions under which humans work”. So, failure is seen as a system issue, not a person issue.

This thinking helpfully allows you to shift the focus away from the ‘Person’ to the ‘System’. In these circumstances, failure can become ‘blameless’ and (in theory) people are more likely to talk about it, and consequently learn from it. The paper goes on to reference research in the aviation maintenance industry (well-known for its focus on safety and risk management) where 90% of quality lapses were judged as ‘blameless’ (system errors) and opportunities to learn (from failure).

It’s worth a look at the paper’s summary of research into failure in high reliability organisations (below) and reflecting, do these organisations have a Person Approach or Systems Approach to failure? Would failure be seen as ‘blameless’ or ‘blameworthy’?

High Reliability Organisations: Source  BMJ, 2000 Mar 18:320(7237): 768-770

High Reliability Organisations: Source BMJ, 2000 Mar 18:320(7237): 768-770

It’s not all good news. The Swiss Cheese Model does have a few criticisms. I have written about it previously in ‘Failure Models, how to get from a backwards look to real-time learning’. It is worth looking at the comments on the post for a helpful analysis from Matt Wyatt. Some people feel the model represents a neatly engineered world and is great for looking backwards at ‘what caused the failure’, but is of limited use for predicting failure. The suggestion is that organisations need to maintain a ‘consistent mindset of intelligent wariness’. That sounds interesting…………

There will be more on this at #LFFdigital, and I will follow it up in another post.

So, What’s the PONT?

  1. Failure is inevitable in Complex Human Systems (it is part of the human condition).
  2. We cannot change the human condition, but we can change the conditions under which humans work.
  3. Moving from a Person Approach to a System Approach to failure helps move from ‘blameworthy’ to ‘blameless’ failure, and learning opportunities.

Learn the Rules Like a Pro, So You Can Break Them Like an Artist.

IMG_3851“Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist” is a quote attributed to Pablo Picasso. Variations of it have been used widely by people from The Dali Lama to Fashion Guru Alexander McQueen, which is where my story begins…..

Once upon a time my friday evenings typically involved quality moments at the bar in Pontyclun Rugby Club. You get the picture…. a robust discussion of culture, philosophy, macro-economics and global politics (and beer). So, you can imagine how easy it was for me (8pm last friday evening) to merge seamlessly with the crowds at The Victoria & Albert Museum. Waiting patiently in a very warm queue to see the sellout Alexander McQueen exhibition, Savage Beauty.

I’m ashamed to say that I wasn’t expecting to enjoy it. High Fashion isn’t really my thing, and my impressions of Alexander McQueen’s work were based upon occasionally flicking through the pages of Vogue. All pretty scary stuff as far as I could see.  So…… I’m shuffling along with the crowds, feigning interest, when I’m  suddenly confronted with a quote from McQueen that changed everything…..“You’ve got to know the rules to break them…. That’s what I’m here for – to demolish the rules but keep the tradition”.

I was transfixed – I was immediately out of the line and pushing my way back in at the start of the exhibition. I was like a man on a mission, reading everything I could and looking at the displays with renewed interest. What on earth was going on you might now be asking….

IMG_3840Alexander McQueen Spent 5 Years as an Apprentice. It turns out that McQueen left his East End school (with one O Level in Art) at 16 years of age and went to work as a Tailors Apprentice in London’s Savile Row. During this period, including two years at a military tailors, he learnt how to produce beautifully tailored garments.

A Masters Degree in Fashion at St Martins College followed, and the rest is history (very interesting history as it happens). One of the things that stood out for me in the exhibition was the fact that McQueen was always recognised for his skill and ability in garment making – he knew how things worked.

When you look at what he produced in his early years, you can see this – and you know it is there with the more ‘avant grade’ productions from later years – they wouldn’t exist without that deeper understanding (even the birch plywood dress). The quote “you’ve got to know the rules to break them….” beautifully sums up that approach. It also embodies why I think the idea of an apprenticeship (time spent learning your craft) is so very important. As Picasso said, it’s all about “learning the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist”.

IMG_3849How do Apprenticeships Work? Apprenticeships have been around since the 1300’s and have been broadly defined as ‘a person who learns a trade from a skilled employer, for a fixed period at low wages’. I think there’s a bit more to it nowadays and it is worth a look at the Wikipedia description of apprenticeships, particularly in countries like Germany and France.

It you fancy going deeper, The Educational Theory of Apprenticeship is also worth a look. This is all about ‘learning through the physical integration into practices associated with the subject’, getting your ‘hands dirty’. I particularly like the explanation of the passage of a novice through to ‘journeyman’ in 5 Phases:

  1. Modelling – the learner observes and contemplates. Basically you have a look at what the expert is doing and think about what you have seen.
  2. Approximating – in non-critical scenarios, the learner mimics the actions of the teacher. There is opportunity to make mistakes and fail in this ‘non-critical’ environment, and essential part of the learning process.
  3. Fading – the learner (still within a safety net) starts to ‘play’ with what they have learnt , and there is less dependence upon the teacher.
  4. Self Directed Learning – the learner attempts actions in the real world, where the scope is well understood. They only seek assistance from the expert when required.
  5. Generalising – the learners skills are applied to multiple scenarios in the real world as they continue to learn and grow their ability. Within each of these phases there is an emphasis upon thinking and reflecting upon what you have experienced and learnt.

I think this is a very useful model that can be applied far more widely than trade and craft apprenticeships. All sorts of activities and professions (and dare I say Leadership and Management) could benefit from people spending time going through these phases.  To sum up what I’ve picked up from my recent experiences of learning about apprenticeships:

  • They take time (typically between 2-7 years to fully learn and understand)
  • You need to know how things work (learn the rules)
  • There needs to be a ‘safe’ space to learn from mistakes (and failure)
  • You have to keep learning (or you’ll stay as a ‘Journeyman’)

IMG_3844Fast Track Graduate Schemes. Finally, I do wonder if there is a case for taking more of an apprenticeship approach to ‘fast track’ graduate schemes?

Based on what I’ve been reading I think that you do need time to learn how things work. You also need time to test, fail and make mistakes – it’s a key part of learning. How many fast track schemes allow this?

Ultimately you really need to learn the ‘rules’ (written and unwritten) – only then can you behave like Picasso, The Dali Lama and Alexander McQueen. It takes time and hard graft.

So, What’s the PONT?

  1. Understanding ‘how things work’ really is necessary to perform any task or job.
  2. This will take time, commitment and a fair bit of reflection / thinking, as well as the practical stuff.
  3. If you want to break the rules like a pro/effectively, you really need to understand what you are breaking, so learn them in the first place.

Thanks to my old school friend Ian Davies for also inspiring this post with our chats about apprenticeships, and for coaching one of my sons in the dark arts of quality management systems.

The Ladder of Inference. Climbing Down from Expert Bias

The Ladder of Inference is a concept developed by the late Harvard Professor Chris Argyris, to help explain why people looking at the same set of evidence can draw very different conclusions.

The difference comes from the idea that, based on their beliefs, people ‘choose’ what they see in amongst a mass of information.

More on that later, but first off, who fancies an experiment?

If I was being a bit hipster I could claim it as a Randomised Control Trial (RCT if you are uber hipster), but I’ll stick to plain old ‘experiment’.

Try this experiment at home or in the office:

  1. Go to twitter and find a hashtag for a recent conference or seminar where people have been busily tweeting,
  2. The topic doesn’t really matter, but something reasonably linked to your area of interest/business might be useful,
  3. Search on the hashtag so that you can see a good selection of tweets – about 100 will do,
  4. Copy the 100 tweets and paste them into a document. The aim is to have about 3 pages of written text for people to look at (pretty straightforward so far),
  5. Now find two Test Subjects (people). Colleagues with very different views on the world would be good. Mr Grumpy and Miss Sunshine or Cruella de Vil and Ronald McDonald (we all have them).
  6. Now ask the Test Subjects to independently review the tweets and provide you with a summary of the key points emerging from the Twitter stream,
  7. Just to make it interesting you could ask the Test Subjects to summarise their findings in no more than 5 tweets,
  8. Sit back and wait for the results.
  9. If you are feeling ambitious, you could repeat this experiment a number of times, with different Test Subjects, different collections of tweets or a different context.
  10. For example choose Test Subjects (people) with a very similar outlook. Before they do the analysis, brief one that you thought seminar was excellent, and the other that you thought it was rubbish (sneaky!).

The Results. I’ve not formally run this experiment (yet) but I have experienced a fair number of the summaries of Twitter conversations that people like to share about conferences. Storify Twitter summaries are almost mandatory for public sector conferences nowadays.

What has intrigued me is just how differently people can interpret and present the summary of the discussion at the same event. I appreciate that there will be a certain amount of bias and pushing of corporate messages. If your organisation is running the conference/seminar you will probably want to push key messages – dissenting voices and challenge probably isn’t something you are going to ‘share’ given the choice.

However, it is the variation in the summaries from the apparently independent/unbiased people that intrigues me. I’m sure that people will have very good intentions, but I do think there is a fair bit of ‘expert bias’ going on in these situations.

This is something neatly illustrated by The Ladder of Inference developed by Chris Argyris and had also been used by Peter Senge in his book The Fifth Discipline.

The basic idea is that:

  • When presented with a range of information/data/facts, we select what fits with a belief we already hold about that situation.
  • All other information is ignored.
  • We make our decision on the ‘evidence’ we have selected (evidence based decisions are always the best).
  • Our beliefs become stronger based on that good decision we have made (a feedback loop).
  • In the future, when we look at information/data/facts, and what we select will be influenced our now more strongly held beliefs.

Both of the graphics I’ve used in this post illustrates the concept very effectively. If you would prefer here is a 3 min video, The Ladder of Inference Created Bad Judgement, from Edward Muzio.

Am I suffering from ‘Expert Bias’? I’ve been worrying for a while that I’m a candidate for The Ladder of Inference. It’s not just how I view the tweets from a seminar, but just about everything where I’m presented with data/information/facts.

Everything I’ve ever experienced informs how I see things and gives me an ‘expert bias’. You might now be thinking, ‘that would never happen to me….’ (oh lucky you…..)

At one level it could be argued that I should stop getting anxious and get over it – that’s the job, to make sense of complicated information. At another level I would like to put some rigour into what I’m doing, how do I perform a cross check?

The work from Chris Argyris suggests a process of ‘climbing down’ The Ladder of Inference. Going back down into the facts and looking at all them more closely, attempting to remove your bias. The Edward Muzio video summarises this as:

  • Climb down the Ladder of Inference (a lovely metaphor)
  • Question your Assumptions and Conclusions (with a trusted colleague)
  • Seek Out Contrary Data (to test what you are seeing)

These are all good suggestion, but quite hard to do. What if you have no idea of how you are biased? The topic of unconscious bias, how you recognise it, and how you deal with it is helpfully the focus HR Training Programmes in many organisations, linked to things like equalities and diversity work, but helpful in so many other areas.

At the end of the day, if we just get as far as recognising there is such a thing as The Ladder of Inference and Expert Bias, I think that’s a pretty good start. It might help me when I’m reading the next tweet Storify.

So, What’s the PONT?

  1. People can interpret the same set of ‘facts’ in different ways.
  2. Recognising it as Expert Bias, Unconscious Bias or The Ladder of Inference is helpful as it can help prevent wrong conclusions and bad decisions.
  3. Once your bias is recognised, you need to take steps to ‘Climb Down The Ladder’. It’s always better to fall from a low step.

That Which Does Not Kill Us Makes Us Stronger. Beneficial Accidents and Survivable Failure

Del Boy Trotter, Risk Management Advisor, "Who Dares Wins"

Del Boy Trotter, Risk Management Advisor, “Who Dares Wins”

“That which does not kill us makes us stronger” A terrible confession to start….. I thought it was Del Boy Trotter; Risk Management Advisor (“who dares wins”) and famous Peckham Philosopher who said this. Actually it was Friedrich Nietzsche, the famous German Philosopher (1844-1900), but you all knew that. It’s a very well-known phrase and has been popularised by songs like ‘Stronger’ by singer Kelly Clarkson.

We all know it makes sense….. some minor trauma, a failure or a setback (provided you learn some lessons from it) will improve things for the future; making us stronger, cleverer, more skilful, more resilient. Nietzsche coined the phrase in the late 1800’s and we’ve been quoting it ever since. However, there didn’t seem to be much empirical research to prove this was the case, until recently….

Buffalo University USA, Mark D. Seery. The 2010 research by Seery, Holman and Silver, ‘Whatever Does Not Kill Us: Cumulative Lifetime Adversity, Vulnerability and Resilience’ looked at the impact of negative events on the lives of almost 2400 people.

My interpretation of the conclusions they came up with are:

  1. If you have no trauma or difficulties in your life then you aren’t very well equipped to deal with something bad when it happens.
  2. If you have lots of difficulties (chronic exposure) you are in a pretty bad place full stop. More trauma or difficulty just adds to the misery.
  3. The right amount of bad stuff means you develop resilience that allows you to cope much better with any future difficulties. A sort of ‘Goldilocks Zone’ of bad stuff – not too much, not too little…..’just right’.

All a bit like taking well-managed risks, learning from failure, beneficial accidents and Trojan Mice….

Trojan Mice 'Safe to Fail' Pilots Run in Parallel.  Full graphic at end of post

Trojan Mice ‘Safe to Fail’ Pilots Run in Parallel.
Full graphic at end of post (*no actual mice were harmed in the process)

























What are Beneficial Accidents and Trojan Mice?  Trojan Mice mice is a metaphor for an approach you can use when testing ideas in a complex situation. Explained as ‘safe to fail pilots’ by Dave Snowden; multiple test pilots that are run in parallel. ‘Safe to Fail’ means that any failure is fully ‘survivable’ and some pilots might actually be designed to fail. The whole point is that you test the situation and learn incredibly valuable things from the pilots and any failures. By conducting this process with multiple tests in parallel you are able to scale up what works and ‘kill off’ (I prefer the word ‘dampen’) what doesn’t. I have talked about this before in: 5 Differences Between Trojan Horses and Trojan Mice and What’s Eating the Trojan Mice.

Trojan Mice this week were part of a workshop I was running on ‘Well Managed Risks’ at the Welsh Public Services Summer School (#SSWales on Twitter) which, by the way was inspiring and an incredible opportunity to learn and share ideas.  Whilst I was explaining the benefits of ‘safe to fail’ Trojan Mice and ‘survivable failure’ one of the delegates shared the concept of ‘Beneficial Accidents’……. the same sort of thing, accidents where you learn a huge amount, but it doesn’t actually do you any significant harm.

The area she worked in was Children’s Play, and we all quickly started sharing stories of falling out to trees and other escapades that taught us so much as children. It’s obvious really, but why isn’t the approach widespread in the world of work?

The lady who shared the idea of Beneficial Accidents said it was a phrase that had been used by people from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA), and also shared a document from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) with me (thank you Cathryn).

Children’s Play and Leisure – Promoting a Balanced Approach from the HSE is well worth reading in you are at interested in how to approach learning from failure and  well-managed risk taking. Just have a look at this section on ‘striking the right balance’ from the document – if you replaced the ‘play’ references with ‘corporate’ I think it would work quite nicely as a guide to what ‘well managed risks’ look like.

HSE Play and Leisure Guidance  Mistakes and Accidents WILL Happen!

HSE Play and Leisure Guidance
Mistakes and Accidents WILL Happen!

Well Managed Risks and Failure. Getting back to where this all started:

  • Doing things differently involves some sort of risk (“who dares wins” – Del Boy Trotter)
  • Risk Management is not about eliminating risk
  • In a complex environment, multiple ‘safe to fail pilots’ (Trojan Mice) are a good idea
  • Failures is great for learning, but needs to be survivable (Beneficial Accidents)
  • If it hasn’t killed you, it will probably make you stronger (Nietzsche & the HSE?)

In August I’m taking part in a session in Cardiff which is looking at Practical Strategies for Learning from Failure with Shirley Ayres, Roxanne Persaud and Paul Taylor. It’s a pilot for something we plan to do Leeds in the Autumn. If this sort of thing interests you – tickets are available here: Practical Strategies for Learning from Failure #LFFdigital

So, What’s the PONT?

  1. No risk = do nothing = extinction
  2. Learning from failure / averse incidents helps you in the long-term, and helps build resilience
  3. The ‘Beneficial Accidents’ approach and HSE guidance on children’s play could be used for approaching ‘Well Managed Risks’ is the corporate world.

Here is the full graphic of Trojan Horse v Trojan Mice from Summer School. Thanks to Paul  Richardson of for this.


Corporate Reporting. Doing a Jigsaw Puzzle Without the Box Lid?

Me as a 3D Jigsaw Puzzle of a Corporate Planning and Reporting Minion

Me as a 3D Jigsaw Puzzle of a Corporate Planning and Reporting Minion

This week I’ve been reminiscing about my time spent as a Corporate Planning and Performance Reporting Minion.

They were happy days (I think?).  Thankfully I’ve been ‘clean’ for 10 years, 5 months and 12 days,

I’m not dropping my guard though. I know that all it takes is one email (cc’d to your boss) and I’ll be ‘off the wagon’. Before you can say ‘Three Year Plan’ I’ll be demanding quarterly KPI returns, updates for the Leadership Team Dashboard (cc’d to your bosses boss) and ‘cascading linked spreadsheets’ of ‘mandatory’ information. It’s like a disease and I was part of the problem.

What prompted the nostalgia was a conversation where someone very wise explained what it was like to produce the Annual Report in their world….

“the corporate reporting job is a bit like putting together the pieces in a jigsaw puzzle, relatively straightforward…..” (lovely, I get this….)

“however, we don’t have the picture from the lid of the box the jigsaw puzzle came in”….  (oh dear, that sounds familar….)

“in fact, I’m not even sure there is a box lid, and if there was, the picture probably wouldn’t make any sense…..” (sigh…..) 

Well this got me thinking, is this the ‘missing jigsaw box lid’ approach to corporate reporting?

Even more interesting, is it a situation where different people imagine a different picture on the jigsaw box lid? For some it’s a highly complicated picture of Picasso’s Three Musicians. (An example of Synthetic Cubism, quite close to the reality of some corporate planning systems I’ve experienced). For others the corporate report ‘picture’ is very simple, a 10 piece Children’s Wooden Elephant Jigsaw (Early Learning Centre). I think we used to call these ‘Balanced Scorecards’ back in the day…… Have a look at this picture and please tell me you get what I’m blathering on about.

Synthetic Cubism verus ELC  Wooden Elephant. Reality versus expectations?

Synthetic Cubism verus ELC Wooden Elephant. Reality versus expectations?

Synthetic Cubism = Corporate Reporting. You might now be wondering, what on earth Cubism has to do with corporate reporting? Well have a ponder on this definition; ‘In Cubist artwork, objects are analysed, broken up and reassembled in an abstract form – instead of depicting objects from one viewpoint, the artist depicts the subject from a multitude of viewpoints to represent the subject in greater context’

Many years after my experiences in that world this explanation has come as a bit of a revelation. I now understand, I wasn’t just a Corporate Planning Minion, I was an Artist – a Cubism Artist!

Just have a look at the definition of cubism through the lens of corporate reporting ….

  • ‘objects are analysed, broken up and reassembled’…… data and information is collected, analysed, collated and reported.
  • ‘the artist depicts the subject from a multitude of viewpoints’…. information is presented in a variety of ways.
  • ‘to represent the subject in greater context’….. to meet the requirements of the audience.

That makes me feel so much better, now I know why I felt so uncomfortable, I was an artist in a world of scientists. Retrospective coherence (making sense of things with the benefit of hindsight) is a great thing!

There is a serious point to all this. The conversations I’ve been having 10 years after my experiences in the corporate reporting ‘engine room’, suggested that things hadn’t changed very much. As far as I could see there are two big issues, which are to a degree in conflict with each other.

  • People have very different expectations. The ‘bosses’ quite often think of corporate reporting as a 10 piece wooden jigsaw, while the Minions know it’s a bit more like Picasso’s Three Musicians. The drive towards the 10 piece elephant jigsaw can result in the large-scale aggregation of information and the risk that things become ‘averaged out’, over simplified and too abstract. Sometimes you need to see the detail of what is happening at the ‘coal face’, even at Board level.
  • Almost everyone wants to keep adding things into the system – just to provide that bit more assurance. This ends up making the picture even more complicated and the jigsaw ever more difficult to complete.

The Integrated Reporting Movement…..this might just help. If you haven’t switched off yet…. this is worth a look. The Integrated Reporting ‘Movement’ is all about improving how organisations “communicate a clear, concise integrated story that explains how ALL of their resources create value”. It’s all explained in-depth on the Integrated Reporting website. There are some important messages here about sustainability, not just the ‘green stuff’, but a focus on how areas like the impact upon society and the viability of the organisation in the long-term (20 – 30 years) are being considered. When you add-on the emphasis on clear and concise reporting there’s quite a lot to get excited about here.

If you prefer your information on Integrated Reporting via video, here’s link to Professor Mervyn King (the South African one, not the Bank of England) taking about Integrated Reporting. Thanks to Mike Palmer for pointing me in the direction of this.

So, what’s the PONT?

  1. Corporate reporting can feel like more of an art than a science – perhaps it’s a bit of both?
  2. Seeing the ‘big picture’ / ‘jigsaw box lid’ is important, as is understanding that simplification to a 10 Piece Wooden Elephant can have risks.
  3. The Integrated Reporting ‘Movement’ is gathering pace. It’s already happening in the private sector and may be appearing in public sector bodies sometime soon.
Integrated Reporting - the new 'Jigsaw Box Lid' for everyone?

Integrated Reporting – the new ‘Jigsaw Box Lid’ for everyone?

Homologation, Rule Changes and Forcing Innovation


A quick multiple choice test; What is Homologation?

  1. The process for making fruit smoothies,
  2. A delicious new yoghurt using Greek Honey and Goats Milk, or
  3. Approval being granted by an official body.


Congratulations if you chose Number 3. Homologation is indeed the process of an official body (Government, Court of Law, Academic Body, Professional Institution, Industry Body etc) granting approval for something, a bit similar to accreditation. Not a word I knew of, and something I’ve only learnt about for 2 reasons:

  • An explanation from some mechanical engineers of how innovation is ‘forced’ into F1 Motorsport, and
  • A short conversation with Sheldon Steed at People Driven Digital (#pdDigital15) about how big institutions get to recognise and accept novel products, ideas and innovation from small organisations.

F1 Racing and Homologation.  If you want to get a feel for the technical regulation of Formula 1 Motorsport have a read of this article ‘Arms Race? Game Changer? What do the Latest Changes to F1 Engine Rules Mean?’ by F1 broadcaster James Allen. Homologation gets mentioned a lot.

Back to where this started for me, I was listening to a group of very experienced Mechanical and Electrical Engineers talk about innovation in F1. The gist of the discussion was as follows:

  • The razzmatazz of a Grand Prix Race, Television exposure, Superstar Drivers and massive sponsorship deals are just a side-show (in their view),
  • But a side-show with a purpose – it funds the really interesting engineering innovation behind F1 that makes the cars achieve incredible things,
  • It’s the engineering innovation that stops F1 getting boring (really?) and in particular the frequent rule changes that the governing body introduces – this is where homologation fits it.
  • Basically the governing body changes the rules – for example on how energy is recovered from the brakes to feed into electric motors on the car.
  • The engineers come up with their solution and before the car can be raced, the solution has to be homologated (approved).
  • That all sounded very clever and sensible to me. A good example of where a governing body, the Federation International de l’ Automobile (FIA), is forcing innovation by changing the rules – and example of disruptive innovation (something that gets talked about so much at the moment).

Red Bull Soap Box races - not sure if this reaches F1

Red Bull Soap Box Races – not sure if this technology ever reaches F1 cars

Upsetting the Hierarchy. The Engineers I listened to were an interesting bunch and they didn’t stop there. The other important part of the world of F1 rule changes they spoke about was “upsetting the hierarchy”. They explained it as follows;

  • The ‘big’ companies in the motor-sport world are brilliant at all sorts of things like maximising the efficiency and effectiveness of existing systems and products. They have enough money and resources to ‘squeeze’ the existing design/product/system to get that last few percent out of it.
  • This ‘last few’ percent will get them to first past the chequered flag in a stable system.
  • What they are not so go at is; agile, creative, innovative solutions when the rules of the game change. This is where the smaller organisations seem to have the advantage.
  • When the rules change, the smaller organisations come in with the radical new solutions, and have them tested in a rigorous/brutal environment (the homologation process and the F1 races).
  • Where things work the small organisations have a competitive advantage and are able to upset the hierarchy – for a short time.
  • Quickly the big organisations are able to identify what the others have done, standardise and improve it to ‘squeeze the extra few percent’.

This all sounded very convincing and very effective to my ears; change the rules, force innovation, upset the existing hierarchy. A really interesting approach from the Governing Body (FIA) who change the rules and impose homologation to; keep F1 Motor-sport interesting, feed innovation into domestic car production, and maintain a bunch of very happy engineers.

IMG_3500The link with People Driven Digital. At the People Driven Digital I heard about how people who are developing new/innovative solutions are finding it a challenge to engage with big organisations like the NHS or Pharmaceutical Companies. The sense I got was that some big organisations tend to only want to talk to other big organisations.

In the conversation with  Sheldon Steed, we talked about the challenges he faced with the digital phone app he had developed to manage diabetes for his sons. It is worth looking at the video he has posted on his blog about the app mumoACTIVE.

The point I’m getting at here is, can we learn something from rule changes, homologation and the disruption of hierarchies in F1 motor-sport? Is there an opportunity for the big organisations in health to find a different way to talk to the smaller (possibly more agile and innovative) organisations? Can things like People Driven Digital in Leeds and the NHS Hackdays in Cardiff (which I was fortunate to attend) provide the ‘safe’ space for it to happen? I hope so.

So, what’s the PONT?

  1. Changing the “rules” can force people to think differently and develop innovative solutions (disruptive innovation).
  2. The approach can disrupt hierarchies, where existing ‘big players’ get overtaken by ‘small fry’ with better solutions (this can have consequences for ‘small fry’).
  3. Can things like People Driven Digital in Leeds and NHS Hackday in Cardiff provide the space for ‘big organisations’ to engage with ‘small organisations’

Friends Don’t Let Friends Have Rubbish Meetings. Peer Pressure to ‘Do The Right Thing’

A greeting card you can send to fellow knitters

A real greeting card you can send to fellow knitters*

Friends don’t let Friends …. Knit Drunk. Sorry to start a post with such a disturbing image.

It all started with a schooner of sweet sherry, now just look at those loose stitches, and the wool colours. All so preventable and very wrong.

Sometimes it is necessary to share startling graphic images to highlight the consequences of doing the wrong thing. Only then your friends might step in and ‘nudge’ you in the right direction.

After dabbling with Behaviour Change Science in the last post, ‘Meeting Lemmings and Choice Architecture’, I’m sticking with the topic. This time it’s about using peer pressure to ‘nudge’ people towards having better meetings….

Friends Don’t Let Friends…. Do Lots of Things. There’s a lot of material on the internet about Peer Pressure and the ‘Friends don’t let Friends…’ campaigns. Alongside the dozens spin-off T-shirts, posters and other paraphernalia there are plenty of papers and articles describing the effectiveness of the approach. A great deal of it is linked to the world of social marketing campaigns in Public Health, aimed at areas like; preventing drink driving, anti smoking, anti drugs and general ‘improve your lifestyle’ messages.

Possibly the most well-known campaign and character is Smokey Bear, who started life back in 1944 as part of an initiative to reduce the number of forest fires in the USA. By 1983 Smokey Bear had expanded beyond Forestry, into the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, to head up the anti drink driving campaign. During the period 1983-1999 alcohol related road fatalities in the USA dropped from 21,000 a year to 12,500. The success of the Smokey Bear, “Friends Don’t Let Friends Drive Drunk” campaign led to Smokey being inducted into the Advertising Week Walk of Fame in 2014 (have a read of the article, it is interesting).  There are plenty of videos of Smokey Bear online if you fancy.

So what else can Peer Pressure do? Getting back to where I started, could peer pressure be used to help nudge people into having better meetings? Is there room in the corporate world for a ‘Friends Don’t Let Friends Have Rubbish Meetings’ campaign? Could we have T-shirts, posters and lapel badges to support the campaign?

Obviously the office isn’t the forest, and we don’t have bears we could enlist in the campaign. However, I have been reading some serious research (from the Journal Nature you know) which talks about examples of how peer pressure has had the desired effect of changing behaviour. Inducing Peer Pressure to Promote Cooperation, describes how social mechanisms (mostly peer pressure) are able to encourage cooperation between people and promote different behaviours.

There are some interesting examples in the paper like:

  • Micro-lending – where there are higher rates of repaying loans because people know each other and feel peer pressure to pay back what they have borrowed.
  • Water Use – people putting pressure on neighbours not to water their lawns when there is a water shortage.
  • Lobster Fishing – the Maine Lobster Fishery as an example of a successful sustainable fishery operated through the involvement of the fishermen in regulating the fishery and each other (peer pressure).

Lobster on Nova Scotia

Lobster in Halifax Airport, Nova Scotia

I’m particularly interested in the Maine Lobster Fishery as an example of successful ‘co-management’ between the Government and the Lobster Fishing Businesses. This may be an example of ‘co-production’ which is talked about widely in Wales at the moment.

This article by Monique Coombs in Grassroots Economic Organising  explains the organisation and the self-regulation of the Maine Lobster Fishery

Whilst I was in Nova Scotia last year some people I spoke to said that elements of the Maine peer regulation model had been adopted there. I apologise for the half tartan lobster picture. It’s from Halifax Airport and I’ve been desperate for a chance to use it….they do love their lobsters in Nova Scotia.

Will ‘Friends Don’t Let Friends Hold Rubbish Meetings’ work?  I think there is a good chance. There is sound historical evidence that the approach works (Smokey Bear), academic research into the theory, and practice from the extremely difficult world of catching lobsters.

Dealing with a few office workers cannot be that difficult in comparison? Most people want to have better meetings, they just need some help from their friends. All we need are some lapel badges, posters and T-shirts, and we should start the better meetings revolution.

So, What’s the PONT?

  1. Peer Pressure has a powerful effect on changing people’s behaviour.
  2. Campaigns like the Smokey Bear “Friends Don’t Let Friends Drive Drunk” are recognised as being highly successful.
  3. Everyone wants to have better meetings, we just need some help from our friends, “Friends Don’t Let Friends Hold Rubbish Meetings”.

Linked Post: A while back I wrote about social marketing being used to prevent deliberate grass fires in Wales – ironically we’ve just had the worst period of deliberate grass fires for years.

Picture Link: *Drunk Knitting  I know I shouldn’t be surprised, but I’ve just found a community for Drunk Knitters on Facebook.