Environmental impact
by Bernard McGrath, Inspection Validation Centre

I have mixed feelings about reality TV shows. There are some I just will not watch. There are some which, once I start watching, I find it hard to break away from, entrapped by the fascination of seeing how the different people behave and perceive themselves. Finally, there are a few which I have a real interest in viewing. One such programme is ‘Undercover Boss’, which has just started another series. Why? Well, there are a number of reasons but the main ones are the insight it gives into the workings of different business organisations and the fact that the inevitable lesson at the end, more often than not, is that the best people to say how an organisation can be improved are the people who actually do the work; the latter being a well-known and proven fact but one which is not often acted upon, as shown by the series.

One episode that sticks in my mind from a previous series was about the experiences of a boss of a waste recycling company as he spent time, as an operative, in a number of his waste management sites. At one site he spent time sifting waste which passed by on a conveyor belt. The belt was high up on a structure and the operatives were working exposed to the elements. When they went on their break, they went into a portakabin which was filthy. Not the sort of place that you would want to sit in, never mind drink and eat! Not surprisingly, at the end of the programme the boss allocated money to have the rest facilities upgraded to something more suitable for human inhabitation.

But the questions still remained. This was a company whose people were actually “its most important asset”, so why had it let the working environment get so bad in this instance? And, more importantly, what impact had such an environment had on the staff? I know what impact it would have had on me, but that is because it was so bad. The problem with the work environment is that it can impact on people’s behaviour without them being aware they are being affected. Simple objects can have an impact. Participants in a game, who sat at a table with a briefcase strategically placed on it, played the game far more competitively and selfishly than participants who sat near a backpack. Similarly, exposing participants to an illuminating light bulb, often used as a symbol for bright ideas, enhanced insight problem solving but did not enhance general non-insight problem solving.

It doesn’t have to be objects; pictures can also influence behaviour. A wall poster featuring a pair of staring eyes was shown to increase people’s use of an honesty box. And what about colour schemes? When tested in an environment painted in their favourite colour, subjects were found to perform 10% better at problem solving. Blue was found to be the all-round winner for enhancing mood and helping brain function, while red increased mental agitation and tension. Greens and blues are soothing. Colours at opposite ends of the spectrum, such as green and red, force the eye to focus and refocus and so are used in places such as canteens to move people through more quickly. People working indoors with houseplants in their line of vision are reported to perform tasks 12% faster and are able to concentrate better than people who don’t have plants in the room.

So, how does this impact on NDT, which has to be performed in the environment of the component to be inspected? Well, I’m not advocating that NDT companies should follow the lead of the smoothie-maker Innocent and provide staff with astroturf carpets, fussball tables, giant bean bags and full-sized table tennis tables, as was reported recently in the press (although I’m sure people wouldn’t complain if you did). However, as detailed in the Code of Conduct given in Appendix 10 of the PANI 3 report, there are steps which can be taken to reduce the adverse impact of the environment on an inspection: whenever possible, minimising the effect of dust, temperature, wind and rain; providing good access and suitable lighting; and providing adequate facilities to enable operators to complete their tasks to the customer’s satisfaction, including basic facilities such as a changing room, washing/showering facilities and access to a canteen (or similar arrangements). As the Code of Practice states: “the success of an NDT inspection is proportional to the value we place on NDT and the way the Inspector is treated.”

Unfortunately, making more subtle environmental changes to enhance performance would need some research. Although, we could start by following the lead of the Undercover Boss and speak to the operators who do the job!

Please note that the views expressed in this column are the author’s own personal ramblings for the purpose of encouraging discussion within the NDT Newspaper. They do not represent the views of the IVC, Serco Assurance or the HSE who funded the PANI projects.

Letters can be mailed to The Editor, NDT News, Newton Building, St George’s Avenue, Northampton NN2 6JB. Fax: 01604 89 3861; Email: ndtnews@bindt.org or email Bernard McGrath direct at Bernard.McGrath@sercoassurance.com