December 07, 2022, 11:00:32 pm

Risk Perception

Started by James Shaw, August 31, 2019, 02:00:24 pm

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

James Shaw

Each of us has different "life experiences" that help define our perception of risk.

How can an organization help train its employees or members on the "Risk Perception" associated with their activities?

What is the first step?
Jim Shaw
USN: 1987-1992
GANG: 1996-1998
CAP:2000 - Current
USCGA:2018 - Current
SGAUS: 2017 - Current

arajca

The organization needs to identify what it sees as risks.

I (and most of the folks I know) drive vehicles ranging from compact cars to 40ft trucks, so driving a full size van is a not a risk I usually consider. Other members driving experience is limited to their econo-box car, so driving a van is risky to them. That is usually something I have remember to consider at Encampments when assigning drivers to vehicles.

lordmonar

Quote from: MovingOnToOtherThings on August 31, 2019, 02:00:24 pm
Each of us has different "life experiences" that help define our perception of risk.

How can an organization help train its employees or members on the "Risk Perception" associated with their activities?

What is the first step?
Who cares about he Perception of risk.
I don't want our organization making operational decisions based on a perception of risk.   They need to be making the decision based on a objective measurement of the risk.


PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

James Shaw

Quote from: lordmonar on August 31, 2019, 03:29:43 pm
Quote from: MovingOnToOtherThings on August 31, 2019, 02:00:24 pm
Each of us has different "life experiences" that help define our perception of risk.

How can an organization help train its employees or members on the "Risk Perception" associated with their activities?

What is the first step?
Who cares about he Perception of risk.
I don't want our organization making operational decisions based on a perception of risk.   They need to be making the decision based on a objective measurement of the risk.


Do you think you can have an objective measurement of risk if the individuals perceptions of the risk are not there because they do not have the KSA's to support the objective approach?
Jim Shaw
USN: 1987-1992
GANG: 1996-1998
CAP:2000 - Current
USCGA:2018 - Current
SGAUS: 2017 - Current

Luis R. Ramos

That message by Lord appears incomplete.

However wrong I may be by responding to an incomplete message, I feel that the entire CAP safety program does hinge on the perception of risk. What the individual members sees as a risk, which may be or not a real risk. In most cases, everyone will see a real risk. Ie, possibility of someone getting cut by a knife left haphazardly, and other situations will be different. The case presented by Arajca. Ie, some drivers are going to be so familiar with vehicles larger than vans, vs others who are not that familiar with vehicles larger than their cars. Safety risk on the first case, almost none, on the second, high.
Squadron Safety Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer

MSG Mac

One of the reasons we have  Operational Risk Management training.
Michael P. McEleney
Lt Col CAP
MSG USA (Retired)
50 Year Member

Eclipse

Quote from: MSG Mac on September 01, 2019, 12:19:01 am
One of the reasons we have  Operational Risk Management training.


Effective 30 Sept ORM is no longer a part of the CAP lexicon.

"That Others May Zoom"

etodd

Quote from: Eclipse on September 01, 2019, 12:31:29 am
Quote from: MSG Mac on September 01, 2019, 12:19:01 am
One of the reasons we have  Operational Risk Management training.


Effective 30 Sept ORM is no longer a part of the CAP lexicon.


Is the ORM page in WMIRS, that pilots have to fill out, disappearing?
"Don't try to explain it, just bow your head
Breathe in, breathe out, move on ..."

James Shaw

The question is not specific to CAP but can relate to many organizations and individuals that are involved in safety. I appreciate conversations!
Jim Shaw
USN: 1987-1992
GANG: 1996-1998
CAP:2000 - Current
USCGA:2018 - Current
SGAUS: 2017 - Current

lordmonar

Quote from: MovingOnToOtherThings on August 31, 2019, 03:44:02 pm
Quote from: lordmonar on August 31, 2019, 03:29:43 pm
Quote from: MovingOnToOtherThings on August 31, 2019, 02:00:24 pm
Each of us has different "life experiences" that help define our perception of risk.

How can an organization help train its employees or members on the "Risk Perception" associated with their activities?

What is the first step?
Who cares about he Perception of risk.
I don't want our organization making operational decisions based on a perception of risk.   They need to be making the decision based on a objective measurement of the risk.


Do you think you can have an objective measurement of risk if the individuals perceptions of the risk are not there because they do not have the KSA's to support the objective approach?

Yes.   You have subject matter experts develop the objective measurements.     
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Live2Learn

Quote from: lordmonar on September 01, 2019, 04:06:52 am
Yes.   You have subject matter experts develop the objective measurements.   


I have watched in awe and amazement as "subject matter experts" used the Delphi technique to conjure data from a cauldron of opinion spiced with perception.  Absent data from repeatable observations the black art of Delphi divination ("professional opinion" and experience) remains about as good as we'll get.

James Shaw

Quote from: Live2Learn on September 01, 2019, 05:49:27 am
Quote from: lordmonar on September 01, 2019, 04:06:52 am
Yes.   You have subject matter experts develop the objective measurements.   


I have watched in awe and amazement as "subject matter experts" used the Delphi technique to conjure data from a cauldron of opinion spiced with perception.  Absent data from repeatable observations the black art of Delphi divination ("professional opinion" and experience) remains about as good as we'll get.


The  Delphi Method is a great tool for those in many fields to use. From the Safety perspective it can be used for the identification of leading and lagging indicators to help mitigate future risk specific to the use of "numbers" involved. It would take more "statistical data identification" when trying to use it for a subjective prediction of individual actions associated with safe or unsafe acts. The consequences are going to be easier to calculate vs the causations of behavior. The variables would be easier to quantify once the attributes were qualified specific to the many behaviors a person or group of people have. Qualifying the individual behavior would be a very long and detailed approach.

As you have noted it is interesting when you inject opinion and perception as that is part of the original question. I have also noted over the years that many "SME's" remain biased by their own data and less open to challenge and others input.

How can those involved (in this example) use the individual's perception of risk to help mitigate risk?


Jim Shaw
USN: 1987-1992
GANG: 1996-1998
CAP:2000 - Current
USCGA:2018 - Current
SGAUS: 2017 - Current

Live2Learn

Quote from: MovingOnToOtherThings on September 01, 2019, 10:58:27 am
Quote from: Live2Learn on September 01, 2019, 05:49:27 am
Quote from: lordmonar on September 01, 2019, 04:06:52 am
Yes.   You have subject matter experts develop the objective measurements.   


I have watched in awe and amazement as "subject matter experts" used the Delphi technique to conjure data from a cauldron of opinion spiced with perception.  Absent data from repeatable observations the black art of Delphi divination ("professional opinion" and experience) remains about as good as we'll get.


The  Delphi Method is a great tool for those in many fields to use. From the Safety perspective it can be used for the identification of leading and lagging indicators to help mitigate future risk specific to the use of "numbers" involved. It would take more "statistical data identification" when trying to use it for a subjective prediction of individual actions associated with safe or unsafe acts. The consequences are going to be easier to calculate vs the causations of behavior. The variables would be easier to quantify once the attributes were qualified specific to the many behaviors a person or group of people have. Qualifying the individual behavior would be a very long and detailed approach.

As you have noted it is interesting when you inject opinion and perception as that is part of the original question. I have also noted over the years that many "SME's" remain biased by their own data and less open to challenge and others input.


Here, in bold, is the underlying and mega sized flaw in Delphi...

and

Quote
How can those involved (in this example) use the individual's perception of risk to help mitigate risk?


Here in red is the unresolved problem.  Confirmation bias and intellectual inertia are alive and well.

lordmonar

Quote from: MovingOnToOtherThings on September 01, 2019, 10:58:27 am
How can those involved (in this example) use the individual's perception of risk to help mitigate risk?


Depends on the perception.

One may perceive a risk to be greater than it actually is.
Or one may perceive a risk to be less then it actually is.

Since we do (or at least used to) do ORM.    We ask the individual/leader/commander to make decisions based on the importance of the mission vs the risk (Real or Perceived) +/- any possible mitigation.

That is it.

You can't do any better other then educate people on the tools to evaluate risk, tools for mitigation and specific safety training on actual risks (i.e. This is the Ford F-150 Panel Van Mark II.   It has blind spots here, here, here, and here.   The Flux Capacitor may come unglued in wet moist conditions that could result in unexpected time travel.....)

But as a leader.....I don't want to base our training program on leveraging PERCEPTIONS to enact safety.
I want to use FACTS Verifiable and Repeatable.

Yes....we all know "SME" who are worth their weight in dog poop.   Get better SMEs. 
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

James Shaw

Quote from: Live2Learn on September 01, 2019, 03:52:01 pm
Quote from: MovingOnToOtherThings on September 01, 2019, 10:58:27 am
Quote from: Live2Learn on September 01, 2019, 05:49:27 am
Quote from: lordmonar on September 01, 2019, 04:06:52 am
Yes.   You have subject matter experts develop the objective measurements.   


I have watched in awe and amazement as "subject matter experts" used the Delphi technique to conjure data from a cauldron of opinion spiced with perception.  Absent data from repeatable observations the black art of Delphi divination ("professional opinion" and experience) remains about as good as we'll get.


The  Delphi Method is a great tool for those in many fields to use. From the Safety perspective it can be used for the identification of leading and lagging indicators to help mitigate future risk specific to the use of "numbers" involved. It would take more "statistical data identification" when trying to use it for a subjective prediction of individual actions associated with safe or unsafe acts. The consequences are going to be easier to calculate vs the causations of behavior. The variables would be easier to quantify once the attributes were qualified specific to the many behaviors a person or group of people have. Qualifying the individual behavior would be a very long and detailed approach.

As you have noted it is interesting when you inject opinion and perception as that is part of the original question. I have also noted over the years that many "SME's" remain biased by their own data and less open to challenge and others input.


Here, in bold, is the underlying and mega sized flaw in Delphi...

and

Quote
How can those involved (in this example) use the individual's perception of risk to help mitigate risk?


Here in red is the unresolved problem.  Confirmation bias and intellectual inertia are alive and well.


I believe the Delphi has its place in Safety but agree it cannot be the primary tool used. There does exist a confirmation bias in the field and intellectual inertia as well. Of course we can always find ways to challenge established practices and maintain an open mind.



Quote from: lordmonar on September 01, 2019, 04:03:01 pm
Quote from: MovingOnToOtherThings on September 01, 2019, 10:58:27 am
How can those involved (in this example) use the individual’s perception of risk to help mitigate risk?


Depends on the perception.

One may perceive a risk to be greater than it actually is.
Or one may perceive a risk to be less then it actually is.

Since we do (or at least used to) do ORM.    We ask the individual/leader/commander to make decisions based on the importance of the mission vs the risk (Real or Perceived) +/- any possible mitigation.

That is it.

You can't do any better other then educate people on the tools to evaluate risk, tools for mitigation and specific safety training on actual risks (i.e. This is the Ford F-150 Panel Van Mark II.   It has blind spots here, here, here, and here.   The Flux Capacitor may come unglued in wet moist conditions that could result in unexpected time travel.....)

But as a leader.....I don't want to base our training program on leveraging PERCEPTIONS to enact safety.
I want to use FACTS Verifiable and Repeatable.

Yes....we all know "SME" who are worth their weight in dog poop.   Get better SMEs. 



Can we leverage training combined with the individuals perception to help impact a safety program?

Would you agree that "better" SMEs would need to keep an open mind when it comes to safety or the individuals involved?

 
Jim Shaw
USN: 1987-1992
GANG: 1996-1998
CAP:2000 - Current
USCGA:2018 - Current
SGAUS: 2017 - Current

lordmonar

Quote from: MovingOnToOtherThings on September 01, 2019, 04:55:34 pm
Can we leverage training combined with the individuals perception to help impact a safety program?

Well...that's a different question then the one originally asked.

Yes.  You can build a better training program to impact a safety program.

QuoteWould you agree that "better" SMEs would need to keep an open mind when it comes to safety or the individuals involved?

No.  You don't hire SME's to be open minded.   You hire them to provide you their opinions based on their experience and expertise. 

This is where the safety and the safety culture runs afoul.
Safety wants to "make a change" but the SME's are never open minded enough to see that the change is "good".
The SME's are sitting there wondering why the safety guys are pushing yet another rule or change on them when they (The safety guys) don't even know the first thing about the job that they (the SMEs) are doing.

If you have a good idea about making the job safer.   Great.  Sell it to the SME and implement it.
If you can't sell it to SMEs....maybe it is not just inertia or stubbornness.   Maybe you have failed to explain to the SMEs how it will improve safety........oh....and don't forget Safety is almost NEVER the primary concern of the SME.....no matter how many times the plaster that on the wall. 

/rant



PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

James Shaw

Quote from: lordmonar on September 01, 2019, 09:09:43 pm
Quote from: MovingOnToOtherThings on September 01, 2019, 04:55:34 pm
Can we leverage training combined with the individuals perception to help impact a safety program?

Well...that's a different question then the one originally asked.

Yes.  You can build a better training program to impact a safety program.

QuoteWould you agree that "better" SMEs would need to keep an open mind when it comes to safety or the individuals involved?

No.  You don't hire SME's to be open minded.   You hire them to provide you their opinions based on their experience and expertise. 

This is where the safety and the safety culture runs afoul.
Safety wants to "make a change" but the SME's are never open minded enough to see that the change is "good".
The SME's are sitting there wondering why the safety guys are pushing yet another rule or change on them when they (The safety guys) don't even know the first thing about the job that they (the SMEs) are doing.

If you have a good idea about making the job safer.   Great.  Sell it to the SME and implement it.
If you can't sell it to SMEs....maybe it is not just inertia or stubbornness.   Maybe you have failed to explain to the SMEs how it will improve safety........oh....and don't forget Safety is almost NEVER the primary concern of the SME.....no matter how many times the plaster that on the wall. 

/rant


How can an organization help train its employees or members on the "Risk Perception" associated with their activities?

Can we leverage training combined with the individuals perception to help impact a safety program?

To bring it together: Can we bring the individuals experiences and expertise together to help train them on the concept of Risk that will make more sense if we can associate it with something they are already familiar with?

I would agree that the Safety person would need to understand the process more and be able to speak and talk the same language with the SME.

Jim Shaw
USN: 1987-1992
GANG: 1996-1998
CAP:2000 - Current
USCGA:2018 - Current
SGAUS: 2017 - Current

lordmonar

I don't know why you are stuck on the term "Perception".

Yes you can of course use your training program to use known risks and experiences of the target audience  to help understand the ACTUAL risks of the new job/task/operation.

What you are actually trying to do is to destroy their perceptions and replace it with facts.

And that's what I was trying to say at the first.   

If people are don't know the real risks of something....you educate them on the risks.  It's that simple.
If people are too familiar with the task and are under estimating the risk.....again....you educate them on the real risks.

I'm a Skydiver....and I often talk to first time jumpers who thing sky diving is "dangerous" by showing them the statics of their everyday life in relation to the actual risks of skydiving.....i.e.  It is more dangerous to drive to the Drop Zone than it is to do the actual jump.

But....That is a case of an overstated perception of danger.   If they individual does not believe what they are doing is risky....through ignorance or complacency....that's a tougher nut to crack.   

But in either case.....the focus of the training should be mainly on the facts of the risks.   Not over stating nor under stating the risks.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

James Shaw

September 02, 2019, 02:29:38 pm #18 Last Edit: September 02, 2019, 02:33:12 pm by MovingOnToOtherThings
Quote from: lordmonar on September 01, 2019, 10:17:26 pm
I don't know why you are stuck on the term "Perception".

Yes you can of course use your training program to use known risks and experiences of the target audience  to help understand the ACTUAL risks of the new job/task/operation.

What you are actually trying to do is to destroy their perceptions and replace it with facts.

And that's what I was trying to say at the first.   

If people are don't know the real risks of something....you educate them on the risks.  It's that simple.
If people are too familiar with the task and are under estimating the risk.....again....you educate them on the real risks.

I'm a Skydiver....and I often talk to first time jumpers who thing sky diving is "dangerous" by showing them the statics of their everyday life in relation to the actual risks of skydiving.....i.e.  It is more dangerous to drive to the Drop Zone than it is to do the actual jump.

But....That is a case of an overstated perception of danger.   If they individual does not believe what they are doing is risky....through ignorance or complacency....that's a tougher nut to crack.   

But in either case.....the focus of the training should be mainly on the facts of the risks.   Not over stating nor under stating the risks.


I use Perception for several reasons.

If you  look up the definition of "Common Sense" Merriam Webster states: "Sound and prudent judgement based on a simple perception of the situation or facts". This has been the base of part of my safety research and discussions over the last 22 years or so.

I agree that we can use the prior experiences of the individual to help them understand the needs and requirements of understanding risk in a job/task/operation.

For me the intent would be to help use their individual KSA's to help them understand more than just the regulatory and compliance side but the Human Factors involved in the process.

This is why I like to get others opinions and input from the safety perspective as it helps me understand the Human Factors better and challenge my way of thinking and keep an open mind.
Jim Shaw
USN: 1987-1992
GANG: 1996-1998
CAP:2000 - Current
USCGA:2018 - Current
SGAUS: 2017 - Current

THRAWN

Perception plays a big part in the development of an effective SMS and safety culture. Take a look at 2.6 here: https://www.icao.int/safety/SafetyManagement/Documents/Doc.9859.3rd%20Edition.alltext.en.pdf where it discusses how "perception", individual, organizational, and cultural, impacts how safety is viewed. The struggle is to balance that perception with the hard data to develop an effective and comprehensive RMS and SMS.
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016