SECTION III Service Systems
3.3 Tuttava — A Strategy to Initiate Workplace Improvements
The best strategy to initiate positive changes at a workplace is induction by success. It means going through several small steps that give positive experiences and reinforce the desire to go further. The experiences of success lead to more sustainable results than other strategies do. Stepwise progress leads to continuous improvements. Positive results enhance the development of management–labor relations, especially when the improvements result from joint efforts.
To this end, we developed a method and a process which focuses on tools and materials, the most important aspect of housekeeping. It is called Tuttava, which is an acronym coming from Finnish words which mean “safely productive work habits.” Tuttava is a method for initiating the change toward a better workplace (Figure 3.1). It was developed about ten years ago and it has become widely implemented in Finland (Saari and Näsänen, 1989; Saari 1996). There are also several successful applications interna- tionally. Tuttava has the following distinctive characteristics:
• It affects all kinds of health and safety factors, including ergonomics
• It also helps improve quality and production
• It is a model for participatory improvement
• Its main principle is to keep the process positive
• Using a positive approach, it initiates small changes which then reinforce further improvements Tuttava is a project-like method. It takes from four to twelve months to complete. The exact time depends on the participants’ previous experience with participatory methods and on the organization’s ability to adopt new directions.
FIGURE 3.1 The steps of Tuttava.
improvement must be perceived as a desirable goal. The company has to be reasonably healthy. If it has major problems, it may not be able to focus on this process, or any other process, intensively enough.
Problems may be related to job security, to market, to the reengineering of the company, etc. Workplace issues seem not to be an overriding priority under such circumstances.
Tuttava is well suited to companies with poor management–labor relations. Tuttava is designed to ease problems between management and labor. Actually the best results we have obtained are in companies with rather tense relations. Otherwise the company has to be fairly healthy. Each company has a different culture which determines the roles of management and labor. In a top-down type of culture, consistent commitment and continuous support from the management are essential. The project may fail if the management gives negative reinforcement. In the case of Tuttava, middle managers and supervisors may be afraid of losing part of their power. If so, they have to be put at ease.
I have also seen situations in which employees have initiated the process without input from upper management. In a big company, the workers’ health and safety representative started the process, and the top management came onboard only when positive results were quite clear. The program became a big success in this company, and they use it permanently in their different locations. In this case, the workers’ OHS representative took the leading role. It seems to be important that there is a dedicated person who maintains the momentum. The company is multinational. It has two major locations in Finland. Tuttava has been used with great success in one location where the OHS representative took the leading role. The top management, after becoming convinced, put pressure on the second location to implement the process. In the absence of a leading person, the implementation remained superficial. The good results, however, encouraged other locations in other countries to adopt the process.
It is important to find someone who will become the Tuttava leader. Who this person is depends on the local culture. However, if this person’s “ownership” in the process becomes too strong, it may drive users away.
An external expert may be necessary as a neutralizer in those companies where relations are tense or where no previous experience of a similar method exists. Tense relations do not apply just to situations between management and labor. On the contrary, it seems that more often the biggest problems exist between organizational units on the same level, such as production and maintenance. Also it is often found that some individuals cannot “come along.”
Companies have used different models to organize project teams. Normally, the project team consists of representatives from the project department, both workers and supervisors, as well as representatives from man- agement. OHS representatives, representatives from maintenance, occupational health services, or the per- sonnel department sometimes supplement the core team. In other cases, all the workers belong to the implementation team. However, a smaller core team makes the preparations easier even if this is the case.
It is important that the group has access to funds or services which make technical and other corrective actions possible. The purpose of the process is to initiate all kinds of changes, new work habits, and technical/organizational improvements. When the workers improve their performance, it is only fair that the management makes funds available for technical improvements. The purpose is to initiate a com- prehensive process of improvements. This is important for making the improvements visible, which then reinforces other improvements.
3-6 Occupational Ergonomics: Design and Management of Work Systems
One team covers a work area of 5 to 30 people. We have used Tuttava in larger areas too. However, the effectiveness tends to deteriorate since individuals tend to lose sight of their meaning for the whole.
It is easy for them to think that their contribution does not matter. The lower limit is to keep the focus on groups instead of individuals. Because the process should be positive, it should not point a finger at any individual. In a group that is too small, it is difficult to meet this requirement.
To make sure that a participatory Tuttava succeeds, some conditions have to be fulfilled. (1) There must be a mechanism to elect worker representatives so that the other workers accept them as their representatives (Saari, 1996). (2) Management representatives in teams must have a clear mandate from their superiors.
Especially in hierarchical organizations, a participatory program can induce unnecessary fears. If management thinks a participatory approach takes away their power, an expert-driven implementation might be more justified. The same applies in those cases when there is no way of ensuring that workers accept the worker representatives as their representatives. For example, other workers may see volunteers representing management views more than their views.
An expert-driven implementation may be more justified if the team members cannot obtain a clear mandate from their constituents. Even in this case, a team can and should be formed to advise the expert.
The biggest risk in an expert approach is that the expert does not understand what is important at work and what obscured obstacles may exist to deter changes.
A participatory approach gives the best results. However, the expert approach is more advisable, if a participatory implementation team cannot make decisions as a team, and if the other workers or managers do not accept those decisions freely. An expert may have a role in the participatory approach too. In this case, the expert acts as a coach and provides the team(s) with sufficient training. In the following section, I assume that a participatory team implements the program.
Job Analysis and the Identification of Improvement Goals
The first task of the implementation team is a job and workstation analysis. Tools and materials are the keywords. The team makes an inventory of good work practices for tools and materials.
Hand tools and various work equipment are obvious tools. However, there also are tools that are used infrequently or never. Ladders, work platforms, carts, lifting appliances, etc. are examples of tools that may mostly stay in storage. Fire extinguishers and hoses, emergency exits, eyewash stations, other emer- gency equipment, including emergency lights and exit signs, are tools for those undesirable extreme situations easily forgotten in the daily routine. Access to this special equipment should be free, and it should be properly maintained.
In one case, an implementation team had a fire extinguisher replaced only one day before a painting box broke into flames. This was lucky timing, since the previous fire extinguisher was of the wrong type and would have only made the fire worse. The team noticed the incompatibility of the extinguisher which had been hanging on the wall of the painting area for a long time.
Typical good work practices for the use of tools are, for example, “put tools back in their designated places after use,” “clean and store tools properly,” “coil hoses and cables if not in use,” “keep access clear to fire extinguishers and other similar emergency equipment.”
Some of the following tasks are done in every workstation: receiving, storing, moving, handling, disposing, and shipping of materials. Storing is often the most essential work practice. Because of traffic requirements, some areas need to stay open all the time. Many times there are no clear rules for appropriate storage places. Typical outcomes of this discussion are: keep aisles open and other areas meant for traffic, keep the access to shelves and cupboards free, etc.
Usually, the identification of good work practices is an easy task for the implementation team. Most often, the result is nothing dramatic. Table 3.2 gives an example from a printing ink factory. The list of good work practices may not include a single new practice. However, these good work practices may not be fully in use. It is common that everybody can accept the list without hesitation.
There may be several reasons why good work practices are not in use. Some of them may not be technically feasible. Once we studied the equipping phase of a ship. A problem was that workers brought too many materials to the ship. Many jobs were slowed down as materials blocked aisles, or materials had to be removed first. This caused extra work. It also caused unnecessary stress on the musculoskeletal system. To reduce the amount of supplies in the ship, the work practices specified “Store in the ship only materials needed for one day’s work.”
Why this ideal was not met depended on several factors. Bringing more materials to the ship was faster for the workers. The management was happy, because the workers did not go onshore so frequently. On the other hand, they were unhappy about the extra work. There were conflicting motivations, because management had never really specified the practices. In this case, the primary obstacle for good work practices was the lack of set procedures, in other words an organizational deficiency.
In another case, welding light was a problem. The company had movable curtains for preventing the light from reaching the eyes of workers nearby. It was never really thought out who should put up the curtain, the welder or the person hit by the light. Industrial engineers did not give a respective time allowance to either of the workers when setting up time standards which were the basis of wages. Another factor was that the curtains were not technically most suitable for those conditions, and they often fell down even if time was initially spent to put them up. In this case, the obstacles were both organizational and technical.
A very common example of an obstacle is the use of lifting devices. The workers often do not use lifting devices or help from another person even if technically possible. For example, nurses in hospitals lift patients alone or without a lifting device. The background factor often is that they expect their supervisors will praise them for working fast.
These kinds of problems deter the good work practices from becoming routine. The problem some- times is technical, sometimes just the lack of agreement, or another type of organizational deficiency.
Not knowing the best work practice usually is not the obstacle. These obstacles need to be identified and fixed before a permanent improvement in working habits is possible.
Good work practices should be (a) specific, (b) positive and make work easier, (c) generally acceptable, (d) simple and short statements, (e) started with action verbs, and (f) easy to observe and measure. They should give specific instructions; they should not be general warnings or bans.
Good work practices may require modifications later when the team devises a measurement system.
The good work practices should be partially in use. In some parts of the application area, they may be in use all the time; in some other parts, partially or not at all. The purpose is to give a positive outset for the process of change. If all good work practices were totally new, or never in use, the process would not appreciate current achievements.
The Removal of Technical or Organizational Obstacles
Simultaneously with the drafting of good work practices, a discussion starts about possible obstacles deterring their use. It would be best if the analysis were done workstation by workstation. This way it is
3-8 Occupational Ergonomics: Design and Management of Work Systems
possible to integrate everyone into the process. This may be essential for the acceptance of the change.
Table 3.3 shows a result of an interview study after an intervention at a shipyard (Saarela, 1990). Saarela formed representative improvement groups for each department. Afterwards, the group members and other workers responded to a questionnaire about the results of the process. The group members clearly perceived more improvements than the other employees. Participation strengthens a change process.
If every workstation undergoes an analysis first, then the final list of good work practices will be combined from the individual lists. In similar workstations, often the same obstacles are discussed and more ideas for solutions may surface. The workers often have ideas they have not presented. The analysis may provide a channel for those ideas to surface.
Tuttava has been especially successful in opening development gridlock. Management is often unwilling to invest money on technical improvements, since they believe the workers will not change their work habits accordingly. Workers are unwilling to change their work habits, as management does not invest in permanent improvements. This vicious circle may continue for years.
Because Tuttava emphasizes a positive approach and stepwise progress, it has been a way to break the circle and to learn mutual trust. Therefore, it may not be essential to remove all the obstacles immediately.
Sometimes, those obstacles represent major investments or changes in thinking. Then it may be wiser to do small things first and let the bigger ones follow later.
This approach proved to be highly efficient in an engineering workshop employing about 250 people (Laitinen et al., 1995). A Tuttava program leading to some permanent improvements proved to be a positive experience and provided more mutual trust. In the beginning, the management was quite reluctant to invest in technical improvements. In the late phase of the first set of departmental Tuttava projects, the management attitude changed. Especially, after the good results became visible, it was very easy to get money for technical improvements, and an intensive innovation cycle started. The whole process took two to three years.
Behavioral Changes Theoretical Background
Tuttava does three main things. Those are: (a) the identification of goals and objectives for workplace improvements, both work habits and structural changes, (b) the identification of opportunities for improvements and using the opportunities, and (c) the change of work habits as indicated by the goals and objectives. To make the change of work habits happen, Tuttava utilizes a version of behavior mod- ification.
Bird and Schlesinger (1970) outlined the application of behavior modification for safety. Komaki et al.
(1978) and Sulzer-Azaroff (1978) published independently the first empirical applications. The idea of behavior modification is to provide more positive consequences for safe behavior. Too often, unsafe behavior leads to positive consequences and safe behavior to negative ones. Thus, people more likely choose the unsafe way of working.
The great benefit of this technique is the use of positive consequences only. Therefore, the process gets a positive flavor and the consequent changes get associated with positive factors. Another great benefit
TABLE 3.3 Examples from Two Departments of a Shipyard. The Percentage of Respondents Accepting After the Implementation the Statement: “Housekeeping Has Improved”
Department Relation to the Intervention Process Agree Undecided Disagree
A Group member 100 0 0
A Not member 57 43 0
J Group member 72 14 14
J Not member 35 47 25
From Saarela, K.L. 1990. An intervention program utilizing small groups. Journal of Safety Research 21:149-156. With permission.
(2) the local industrial climate favors faster lifting, and rewards come from the person’s supervisor or co-workers’ positive comments, (3) the person’s friends value strength, and manual lifting provides “free exercise,” etc. Several positive consequences from unsafe lifting override the only negative consequence, low back pain. This consequence does not even materialize after each lift.
The theory of behavior modification tells us to change the balance of consequences to remove unsafe behaviors. The most desirable strategy is to introduce new positive consequences for safe behavior. More negative consequences for unsafe behavior would be another strategy. It is less desirable because the positive strategy leaves better feelings behind and these feelings may support later actions.
A wide variety of positive consequences is possible. The possibilities include various privileges (time off, extra break, etc.), tokens, promotional items, chance to win a contest (lottery, bingo, etc.), social attention, etc. Some of these are straightforward but difficult to administer. Tokens and promotional items are an example. Some are controversial — for example, social attention.
As the first empirical researchers, Komaki et al. (1978) and Sulzer-Azaroff (1978) showed that infor- mation on current performance is sufficient to alter behavior. Performance feedback has several advan- tages. (1) It is easy to administer. (2) It can be made objective. (3) The costs are low. (4) It is effective.
Many researchers have shown that performance feedback works (for reviews see: McAfee and Winn, 1989; Sulzer-Azaroff et al., 1994). For these reasons, we decided to use performance knowledge as the new consequence for safe behavior in Tuttava. The consequences can be given to individuals or to groups.
In our case, we wanted to provide the consequences to groups for enhanced group performance, in the attempt to promote team building and the cohesion of the organizational unit.
Tuttava deviates considerably from a behavior modification program. Behavior modification for safety obtains the feedback from the observation of people’s behavior (Krause, 1990, 1995; McSween, 1995).
In Tuttava, observations do not focus on behavior but on the traces of behavior. In other words, conditions are being observed. However, those conditions are brought about by behavior. Using conditions instead of behaviors is to depersonalize the problems in order to make the request for new behaviors easier to accept. As the purpose is to help improve management–labor relations, this supports team building and promotes cohesion. Also it is assumed that conditions lead to lasting effects (Ray et al., 1993).
Performance Measurement
To provide feedback, the implementation team writes a checklist to measure performance at any given time for providing feedback. The checklist is based on good work practices. It should consist of approximately 100 items to make the measurement accurate enough. Even with this number of observation items, the measurement is still reasonably fast. One observation round does not usually take more than 30 minutes.
Each item of the checklist has only two possible answers “correct” or “incorrect.” After an observation round in the area, the observers can calculate a simple performance index, which is the percentage of
“correct” items. This gives a comprehensible indicator which tells to what extent the good work practices are in use.
To devise the checklist, the team divides the implementation area into sections which form logical units. The sections can be single workstations or larger areas. The purpose of the sections (called observation areas later) is twofold. (1) They make it easy to develop the checklist. (2) They allow the use of a weighing procedure to prioritize the importance of work practices.