Skip to content
1981
Experience Research Part 2
  • ISSN: 2055-2106
  • E-ISSN: 2055-2114

Abstract

The traditionally rationalistic domain of occupational safety is expanding from mistake prevention and fault-finding towards maximizing things that go well. The latter, known as Safety-II, calls for positive engagement by empowering workers to establish safety at work. This study takes a novel approach to Safety-II by focusing on the user experience to understand how it can help move towards Safety-II. This case study explores ‘safety talks’, a safety management method, and was conducted at two Australian mine sites. The study takes a qualitative approach with semi-structured interviews ( = 25) of managers and employees. The data analysis followed inductive thematic analysis with a data-driven approach. The results show the significance of understanding the workers’ experience and needs to achieve desired outcomes with ‘safety talks’ and supporting them appropriately. They highlight the importance of improving safety, understanding the purpose, learning and caring. The results further identified conversation quality through inclusive engagement and relevance, and visibility of outcomes, as key elements for ‘safety talks’. To advance the Safety-II thinking, it is important to understand how workers can be motivated and empowered to work safely. Experience design is a promising yet underutilized approach to increase autonomous motivation to behave safely. This research provides the first step towards it. The provides a grounding for future research on Safety-II management tools. There is a research gap in understanding the role of user experience of safety management tools. To our knowledge, this study is among the first to examine the emotional experiences of such tools. By using safety talks as an example, it contributes a covering the user needs and requirements delivering them successfully.

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • Jenny and Antti Wihuri Foundation (Award 00230103)
© 2025 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/dbs_00069_1
2026-02-23
2026-04-17

Metrics

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adams, W. C. (2015), ‘Conducting semi-structured interviews’, in K. E. Newcomer, H. P. Hatry and J. S. Wholey (eds), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp. 492–505.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahola, M. and Mugge, R. (2017), ‘Safety in passenger ships: The influence of environmental design characteristics on people’s perception of safety’, Applied Ergonomics, 59:PtA, pp. 143–52, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.07.021.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Ahola, M., Murto, P., Kujala, P. and Pitkänen, J. (2014), ‘Perceiving safety in passenger ships: User studies in an authentic environment’, Safety Science, 70:December, pp. 222–32, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2014.05.017.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Al-Shabbani, Z., Sturgill, R. and Dadi, G. (2020), ‘Evaluating the effectiveness of toolbox talks on safety awareness among highway maintenance crews’, in M. E. Asmar, D. Grau and P. Tang (eds), Construction Research Congress 2020, American Society of Civil Engineers, Tempe, Arizona, 8–10 March, Tempe: American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 213–21.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Alsos, O. A. and Svanæs, D. (2011), ‘Designing for the secondary user experience’, in P. Campos, N. Graham, J. Jorge, N. Nunes, P. Palanque and M. Winckler (eds), Human–Computer Interaction: INTERACT 2011, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 84–91.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Autin, K. L., Herdt, M. E., Garcia, R. G. and Ezema, G. N. (2022), ‘Basic psychological need satisfaction, autonomous motivation, and meaningful work: A self-determination theory perspective’, Journal of Career Assessment, 30:1, pp. 78–93, https://doi.org/10.1177/10690727211018647.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006), ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3:2, pp. 77–101, https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2021), ‘To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales’, Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 13:2, pp. 201–16, https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676x.2019.1704846.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M. (2000), ‘The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior’, Psychological Inquiry, 11:4, pp. 227–68, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Dekker, S. (2015), Safety Differently: Human Factors for a New Era, 2nd ed., Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Desmet, P. M. A. and Pohlmeyer, A. E. (2013), ‘An introduction to design for subjective well-being’, International Journal of Design, 7:3, p. 15.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. François, M., Fort, A., Osiurak, F., Crave, P. and Navarro, J. (2024), ‘Does participatory design lead to safer human–machine interaction? Efficiency and distraction with truck dashboards designed by drivers’, Safety Science, 174:June, n.pag., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2024.106482.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Grundgeiger, T., Hurtienne, J. and Happel, O. (2021), ‘Why and how to approach user experience in safety-critical domains: The example of health care’, Human Factors, 63:5, pp. 821–32, https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819887575.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Hassenzahl, M., Diefenbach, S. and Göritz, A. (2010), ‘Needs, affect, and interactive products: Facets of user experience’, Interacting with Computers, 22:5, pp. 353–62, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.04.002.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Hohm, A., Happel, O., Hurtienne, J. and Grundgeiger, T. (2022), ‘User experience in safety-critical domains: A survey on motivational orientations and psychological need satisfaction in acute care’, Cognition, Technology & Work, 24:2, pp. 247–60, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-022-00697-0.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Hollnagel, E. (2014), Safety-I and Safety-II: The Past and Future of Safety Management, Milton: Taylor & Francis Group.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Hollnagel, E. (2017), Safety-II in Practice: Developing the Resilience Potentials, London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Kaasinen, E., Roto, V., Hakulinen, J., Heimonen, T., Jokinen, J. P. P., Karvonen, H., Keskinen, T., Koskinen, H., Lu, Y., Saariluoma, P., Tokkonen, H. and Turunen, M. (2015), ‘Defining user experience goals to guide the design of industrial systems’, Behaviour & Information Technology, 34:10, pp. 976–91, https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929x.2015.1035335.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Kaskutas, V., Jaegers, L., Dale, A. M. and Evanoff, B. A. (2016), ‘Toolbox talks: Insights for improvement’, Professional Safety, 61:1, pp. 33–37.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Knight, J. C. (2002), ‘Safety critical systems: Challenges and directions’, in ICSE '02: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Software Engineering, Orlando, FL, 19–25 May, Orlando, FL: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 547–50, https://doi.org/10.1145/581404.581406.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Koskinen, H. (2023), ‘User involvement in safety-critical system design’, doctoral thesis, Espoo: Aalto University.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Koskinen, H., Karvonen, H. and Tokkonen, H. (2013), ‘User experience targets as design drivers: A case study on the development of a remote crane operator station’, Proceedings of the 31st European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics 2013, Toulouse, France, 26–28 August, Toulouse: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 1–9.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Koskinen, H. M. K., Savioja, P., Mannonen, P. and Aikala, M. (2024), ‘The process is under control! Understanding the building blocks of user experience in operator work’, Proceedings of the 13th Nordic Conference on Human–Computer Interaction, Uppsala, Sweden, 13–16 October, Uppsala: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 1–12.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Lu, Y. and Roto, V. (2015), ‘Evoking meaningful experiences at work: A positive design framework for work tools’, Journal of Engineering Design, 26:4–6, pp. 99–120, https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2015.1041461.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D. and Guassora, A. D. (2016), ‘Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power’, Qualitative Health Research, 26:13, pp. 1753–60, https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Marsh, T. (2017), Talking Safety: A User’s Guide to World Class Safety Conversation, 2nd ed., London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Milošević, I., Stojanović, A., Nikolić, Đ., Mihajlović, I., Brkić, A., Perišić, M. and Spasojević-Brkić, V. (2025), ‘Occupational health and safety performance in a changing mining environment: Identification of critical factors’, Safety Science, 184:April, n.pag., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2024.106745.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Peters, D., Calvo, R. A. and Ryan, R. M. (2018), ‘Designing for motivation, engagement and wellbeing in digital experience’, Frontiers in Psychology, 9:May, n.pag., https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00797.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Reisemann, M. and Krupp, A. (2021), ‘Is user experience a suitable goal in the development of medical devices?’, Current Directions in Biomedical Engineering, 7:2, pp. 807–10, https://doi.org/10.1515/cdbme-2021-2206.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Roto, V., Kaasinen, E., Heimonen, T., Karvonen, H., Jokinen, J. P. P., Mannonen, P., Nousu, H., Hakulinen, J., Lu, Y., Saariluoma, P. O., Kymäläinen, T., Keskinen, T., Turunen, M. and Koskinen, H. M. K. (2017), ‘Utilizing experience goals in design of industrial systems’, Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM: Denver, CO, USA, 6–11 May, Denver, CO: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 6993–7004.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Savioja, P. (2014), ‘Evaluating systems usability in complex work: Development of a systemic usability concept to benefit control room design’, doctoral thesis, Espoo: Aalto University.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Savioja, P. and Norros, L. (2013), ‘Systems usability framework for evaluating tools in safety: Critical work’, Cognition, Technology & Work, 15:3, pp. 255–75, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-012-0224-9.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Scott, N., Fleming, M. and Kelloway, E. K. (2014), ‘Understanding why employees behave safely from a self-determination theory perspective’, in M. Gagné (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Work Engagement, Motivation, and Self-Determination Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 276–94.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Simonsen, E. (2018), ‘Advancing formative control room system evaluation’, doctoral thesis, Gothenburg: Chalmers University of Technology.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Simsek Caglar, P., Roto, V. and Vainio, T. (2022), ‘User experience research in the work context: Maps, gaps and agenda’, Proceedings of the ACM on Human–Computer Interaction, 6:CSCW1, pp. 1–28, https://doi.org/10.1145/3512979.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Väätäjä, H., Seppänen, M. and Paananen, A. (2014), ‘Creating value through user experience: A case study in metals and engineering industry’, International Journal of Technology Marketing, 9:2, p. 163, https://doi.org/10.1504/ijtmkt.2014.060093.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1386/dbs_00069_1
Loading
Experience in occupational safety: Case safety talks
Journal of Design, Business & Society 11, 29 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1386/dbs_00069_1
/content/journals/10.1386/dbs_00069_1
/content/journals/10.1386/dbs_00069_1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): safety management; safety talk; Safety-II; user experience; UX@Work; work environment

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test