Bo Strangert (RD9)

On forming perspectives for

innovative project planning 

Examples from projects on supervision

In some previous papers (RD7, RD8) I suggested that the formation of initial perspectives can be crucial for project planning. In particular, this is the case for projects demanding innovative development of tasks and activities. I have earlier commented on how predetermined restrictions of explicit project directives can be a nuisance for project management (RD3, RD4). In the present paper, this concern is expanded to impediments that are even more difficult to apprehend. These include reasoning with hidden assumptions, being bounded by invisible cultural norms, or anchored to customary habits and attitudes.

The selection of a suitable perspective for a complex task is difficult. Because the early choice can be decisive for further planning and you cannot foresee and calculate consequences, then it is probably little room for gambling but instead strong reasons to fall back on customary practices. However, solving really complex problems demands either innovative capability or extreme luck. Unfortunately, neither of these alternatives can be comfortably prepared by customary practices.

Apropos of the inability to learn from history and previous mistakes, Taleb (2010, p.xxvi) asserts that: ”we don’t learn that we don’t learn”. He thinks that the need for meta-rules for reflection is downgraded nowadays. The tendency is recursive; events and decisions follow at a rapid pace with little time for reflection, and the consequences become progressively less predictable.

What determines an initial perspective? The quick answer is that anything goes. But a more modest, though still very general suggestion, includes the interplay between the type of mission (the defined project task), its context, and the intention and capability of project managers and participants. Its content is of course contingent on the characteristics of the task. Preferably, its formal description should aim at the theoretical specification and preliminary modeling (cf. RD5).

How can we influence the initial perspective of a complex project task? Because the prospects of an initial perspective are unpredictable to a large extent, we must be prepared to change and develop it recurrently. To make a progress in development as safe as possible, the use of a hypothetico-deductive paradigm was suggested in RD5 and RD7. It means that even the early theorizing should be formulated as conceptual structures which allow hypotheses to be derived and empirically tested according to scientific standards. A special concern is that applications to complex social structures will require special R&D approaches. Some associated practical design questions are discussed in RD6.

Next, I choose a concrete historical case to exemplify some of the general topics touched upon above. It is the same case about supervision of work environment as was briefly commented upon in RD7.

A case example about preconditions, opportunities, and impediments of perspectives in the initial planning

Background. In 1993, the former Swedish National Board of Occupational Safety and Health issued its first Ordinance containing Provisions on internal control of the working environment, IK (AFS 1992:6; revised in ASF 1996:6, and adapted in SAM, AFS 2001:1). The IK-provisions regulated the employer’s responsibilities about ”systematically planning, carrying out and follow-up activities in such a way that requirements concerning the working environment are satisfied.” (See www.av.se)

The idea of ”systematic work environment management" was a new approach for working life and for the Authority itself. In addition to the new Provisions, the Authority's supervision required new methods for a system inspection. These had to be developed by the independent regional inspection authorities.

There were some special expectations behind the IK provisions and the new forms of supervision. They involved an apparent belief that the increasing cases of work-related psychosocial ill health could be counteracted by a skilled application of new regulations and supervision. The intentions about the neglected psychosocial work conditions seem to be implicit in the new Provision 5 that ”Internal control … shall encompass all conditions of importance for the working environment.” Consequently, it became a target for system inspection to supervise the employer’s responsibility of conducting systematic work environment management.

All projects about planned change become inevitably more or less preoccupied at early stages by establishing the preconditions for change. Probably, that applied to the present case, too. Later evaluations of the impact of the provisions of IK and SAM have noted indications of rule compliance at the expense of focus on work environment effects (e.g. Lindblom & Hansson, 2003; Eriksson & Schäfer, 2006). They also emphasize the self-evident circumstance that many outcomes of the effect chain, for instance, sick leaves, cannot be attributed casually to rule compliance (e.g. Björkdahl, 2006). Notably, an impressive number of available evaluations seem to be preoccupied with methodological or administrative control questions, not so much with the underlying theoretical problems about the nature of rule compliance and inspection.

Thus, the present case example will be the background to some reflections about perspectives in project planning. The choice of projects on work environment inspection is arbitrary in principle, but suitable because of the abundant access to documentation and reports. I have no intention of making any evaluation of the business of work environment supervision per se.

Back to the historical facts

What happened in 1993 when the IK-provisions were issued? The regional inspection authorities started projects on developing methods of system inspection, and the employers were supposed to study and implement the provisions.

The challenge of conceiving the Provisions may be imagined by looking at my illustration in Figure 1, referring to the revised edition of 1996:6 in the Appendix.

Figure 2. Illustrative structure of the IK-provisions 1996:6 (in Appendix).

How were the new IK provisions received by employers?

In the short-term perspective, many employers were reluctant, because the administrative requirements seemed to increase the bureaucratic burden and interfere with ordinary management. In particular, employers of small enterprises were commonly unresponsive. Large companies responded somewhat more positively to the principle of IK systems, although they often tried to implement it as an administrative parallel to the ordinary management system.

After more than 20 years, there are still many deficits in implementing the latest version of the Provisions (SAM 2001:1, Systematic work environment management) according to Frick and Johansson (2013) and Frick (2013). No wonder that the Authority and the inspectors in the early nineties realized that the IK implementation and the development of inspection methods would be a big challenge!

On modeling hypothetical perspectives of inspection designs

In a previous paper (RD7) I presented three hypothetical types of contrasting perspectives for the task of developing inspection methods following the IK-provisions (AFS 1992:6 and 1996:6). The categorization was based on a preliminary analysis of a few premises for solving the task. An alternative is perhaps to collect and treat narratives about former projects from the nineties, but the anticipated lack of comparable data speaks against such an approach.

The definition of ’perspective’ in the present context

In the previous papers (RD7, RD8), the term ’perspective’ is used to denote the direction and frame of reference of a project during its initial stages of development. Any formal description of a complex task is restricted. The restrictions may concern lack of specification or preciseness of aspects or even omission of aspects despite their possible relevance for a description. Here, the concept ’perspective’ is used to describe a set of distinctive qualities of a project description – in contrast to other possible descriptions of the same task or phenomenon. The theoretical problem is how to define those distinctive qualities or structures of a perspective – why the perspective is formed, and how it influences the development of a project.

A comparison of perspectives requires an explicit model to demonstrate similarities and differences. Figure 2 (from RD5) illustrates some kind of general conceptual conditions for forming and defining perspectives.

.

Figure 2. Schematic structure of general planning conditions

(from Figure 1 in Strangert, RD5, www.arborg.se).

The formal architecture of planning includes the structures of the IK-provisions and the general rules of inspection in the present case. The Formal process of coordination is a model representation of the evolving development of inspections methods – as enacted empirically in the Arena of real development activities. Thus, ’perspective’ can be represented on two levels, either as a theoretical concept or as an empirical one (physical and psychological). The paper RD5 touches on the interrelations between these levels.

An assumption is that all project participants conceive the formal basics of IK-provisions and the general rules of inspection in about the same way when the projects start. The content of these documents is undoubtedly an important part of the formal architecture of planning.

However, a reasonable conjecture is that the differences in perspectives emerge as a process of collecting and coordinating information from different sources in real-time. It implies that IK-provisions etc could be interpreted and used in different ways depending on, for example, research data, experiences during project work, or input from internal institutional context.

I choose a simple system description to frame the theoretical outlines of three possible types of projects for developing inspection methods. (In practice, there were some examples of real projects with characteristics similar to these idealized types.) One type, called ”administrative perspective”, focuses on structured input conditions for work environment management. The second type of ”effect-based perspective” has a results-oriented focus. The third type uses a ”process perspective” on the implementation of the IK provisions. Some distinctive features of the three perspectives are outlined below.

An administrative perspective

The choice of the denotation ”administrative” alludes to a strategy of inspecting that the employer has understood and implemented the preconditions for work environment management, as formulated in the IK provisions. The intention is assumed to be associated with a fuzzy belief of the provisions as a set of ”logically necessary conditions” for effective work environment management. However, the project participants are not supposed to believe that the provisions constitute ”sufficient conditions”; they are most likely aware of other instrumental factors for management, too.

I guess that this administrative perspective was quite consonant both literally and in spirit with the reasoning behind the original design of the IK provisions.

Assumed implications for method development

Focus on separate provisions. The administrative perspective derives its objects of inspection from a literal reading of the provisions. For a population of inspectors in the early nineties, previous conventions and experiences of inspecting could probably influence the interpretation and use of the provisions. Figure 2 illustrates how such an influence could result in implications for the process of inspecting in compliance with a single provision.

Figure 2.  Implications of a single provision for stages in the inspection process.

(1) There would be a preponderance of observing physical objects and easily recognized behavior patterns, as well as of questioning about administrative documents, schedules, and procedures. (2) The preferred norm is to classify data as specified by objective criteria, and (3) to make cautious inferences without awkward consequences for the inspection notice.

Another associated preference will be to treat specific provisions separately, if possible. It is reasonable from an underlying assumption of inspection as a linear process of aggregating indications according to simplicity, speed, objectivity, and easy interpretation. One implication of these criteria could be that just one indicator would be enough for inference about a provision.

An illustrative fact from the first waves of tentative inspections in the nineties is that Provision 6 (about the physical accessibility of rules) was one of the inspectors’ favored inspection objects. Some questions about where the collection of rules was, and whether the place was known by all concerned, almost certainly led to a disclosure of deficits.

Inspection of interdependent provisions. The assumption of inspection as an additive and linear process has implications for handling dependent provisions. A theoretical question is how indications regarding two different but dependent provisions are combined. One example is the relations between requirements of investigation and measures.  Are those functions treated separately but combined additively? Or are they treated as a pattern of interactive components?

The answers bear on the degree of interconnectedness or structure of the IK-provisions as a whole. A rough categorization into ”strong” and ”loose” will suffice for the present discussion. Postulating that the administrative perspective is associated with a rather loose logical structure of IK-provisions will be congruent with the other assumptions.

Figure 3 gives an example of questions about requirements that are associated with Provision 9 on investigating/assessing work environment risks.  There are plenty of ways of combining questions like these during an inspection. The order of questioning could either strengthen certain contingencies or loosen them.

Figure 3. Example of connecting questions about Provision 9.

Yet, patterns of associated indications depend not only on logical or semantical relations but also on physical and learned concrete connections. The materialization will of course vary between branches and local situations. It is quite probable that an inspector using an administrative perspective will become very skilled in judging locally situated physical and administrative patterns.

A special problem is how two of the provisions on basic requirements of IK (Provisions 3 and 5; Figure 2) are included in the administrative perspective. How does an inspector estimate the employer’s conductance of IK (Provision 3)? Is it by aggregating indications and data of some or all requirements (e.g. an IK-index)? Or is it by making a subjective judgment based on a holistic impression?

What about the judgment of natural integration of IK with the management of operations (Provision 4)? Is the judgment based on the degree of structural congruence between IK and the operative management system? Or does it depend on a sample of a few associated indications of IK and operative management?

The IK-provisions as a means of inspecting psychosocial work environment conditions. Once there was an explicit expectation that the IK-provisions should advance the inspection of organizational, social, and psychological work conditions. The idea seemed well-founded because some of those matters depend on the characteristics of management systems. However, some facets of the administrative perspective speak against that expectation. These facets involve several restrictions about inspectors’ backgrounds and priorities. Generally, strategies of inspecting psychosocial work conditions need the capability to deal with relations between multiple fuzzy factors and effects – not a restricted focus on separate and tangible physical and administrative matters.

Limitations and strengths of a hypothetical administrative perspective. This perspective can be said to mirror an administrative strategy to achieve administrative efficiency of inspections. Its qualities are various means to simplify, speed up, and secure the inspection from being called into question. These qualities are accomplished by focussing on reliable indications and low-level inferences,  as well as avoiding complex, time-consuming judgments. This strategy has a direct connection with the Authority’s productivity measures, which include the number of inspections and the number of improvement notices issued.

Hence, a strength of this perspective may lie in its objective stance, that is, its focus on a selected set of reliable indications of rule compliance. It means that those indications can be a verification according to the criteria of rule compliance in a limited sense. However, that particular strength does not pertain to possible indications of complex organizational, social, and psychological problems. This issue will be further discussed in dealing with the effect-based perspective.

Formally, the IK-provisions seem to stand for a truly rational scheme of necessary requirements. Even so, the scheme’s role in the administrative perspective provides no conclusive solution to the treatment of some essential control requisites (e.g. as formulated in Provisions 3 and 5). A minor drawback is, in that respect, that the inspector either has to make holistic, subjective judgments about rule compliance or to use an index of aggregated indicators without any theoretically underpinned rationale. A major difficulty is that rule compliance is not sufficient for the actualization of effective work environment management. This issue will be commented upon in dealing with the process perspective.

Figure 5 gives a schematic picture of the principal state transitions for employer-inspector interactions. The enforcement of IK-provisions is divided into the two states of issuing etc (A) and inspection (B). The model of the administrative perspective shows that the employer’s first implementation of IK (C₁) is transformed into a new state (C₂₎ through an inspection B, eventually leading to new states of work environment activities (D) and effects (E).

The state transitions are assumed to be linearly connected within the administrative perspective: e.g. C₂ = f(C₁ ⊕ B).

Figure 5. Employer-inspector interactions according to different perspectives.

A major untenability of the initial stage of the administrative perspective is its distant and weak relation to the effect goals. Verification in compliance with rules differs substantially from validation of positive work environment effects. Figure 5 illustrates a so-called effect chain, where rule compliance is supposed to be an early link to positive effects. There are at least two objections to a positive impact. A general one is that there are multiple causes besides rule compliance to work environment effects. Another is that the very assumption of a linear effect chain is misleading (cf. a later discussion of the process perspective).

Does the administrative perspective in inspection develop with practice and close the gap between enforced rule compliance and positive work environment effects?  Dynamic changes probably occur due to experiences and external influences, but according to the present hypothetical model the changes will lead to another outcome.     

In summary, the predicted outcome is that inspection of IK by an administrative perspective will in the long run evolve as a biased transformation of the very concept of system inspection. It means that objectifying and simplifying the purpose of provisions through the inspection practice is counterproductive to the implementation of IK as a complex of interacting means and ends. By focussing on formal aspects and easy observable indications, the inspection may in reality influence the IK- implementation negatively. Enforcing IK by biasing the system inspection will not generate the intended systematic work environment management.

Similarities of the model characteristics to real tendencies in supervising systematic work environment management. Many features of the administrative model as outlined here are similar to the ”System inspection concept” (STKP) of the majority of inspection methods developed during the 1990s. Some aspects of a further developed version at Yrkesinspektionen, Malmö district, called Macro inspection, has been evaluated (Levin, 2002).

The Swedish Work Environment Authority has summarized the use of similar methods of ”system inspection” of IK during the 1990s (SWEA, 2006): It was characterized as time-consuming auditing of how management systems for the working environment were documented. Later the progress deviated from supervision of documents towards more organization and risk-adapted super-vision. During the early 2000s, an inspection of the succeeding Provisions, SAM, mostly became part of a larger inspection effort, or when there were special reasons to supervise the management system and routines.

An effect-based perspective

This model description proceeds as a contrast to the untenable assumption of rule compliance as a very significant part of an effect chain. The effect-based perspective uses backward inferences from effect levels to possible preconditions or causes. The implications of the backward reasoning may be used for hypothetical ex post facto explanation or proactive correction of preconditions. Yet, backward reasoning (abduction) does not permit strict logical inferences about causes, only hypothetical statements. That is not always obvious to those practitioners who habitually and mistakenly attribute evidence about effects to mental mechanisms to be causally related to work conditions. For example, a supposed state of mental load may sometimes be suggested as a logically proven causal link between work conditions and self-reports of stress experiences. Reality may be more complex than that.

For the effect-based perspective, Figure 5 depicts a schematic view of a work environment state D_E that includes early cues or symptoms of a possible future negative outcome (E). Those symptoms may be detected and communicated during an inspection (B) and then shared with the employer (C₂) for subsequent decision and action.

This model rests upon some special assumptions. A weak assumption is that there should be a positive correlation between D_E-risk and a negative outcome E; a strong assumption presupposes a possible causal link. Another premise is that the inspection can recognize such a risk and convey valid information about it for possible adequate action by the employer (the IK-system).

As conceived in this way, the inspection conforms to conventional procedures of looking for work environment risks and notifying corrective action. Obviously, the inspection focus is not on the IK-system per se, but instead on its task of investigation and the possible consequences for risk management. Hence, this perspective of risk management contrasts radically with the administrative perspective on system inspection and compliance with the IK provisions.

Limitations and strengths of a hypothetical effect-based perspective. Its strength lies in the aspiration to bridge the gaps in the effect chain between preconditions, risks, and work-related illness or damage. This aspiration is very credible for well-known relations between physical work conditions and physical illness or damage, though it is more uncertain regarding psychosocially mediated effects. For example, there is indeed a large research literature about the alleged general connection between work overload and stress-related illness, but it cannot be applied unconditionally to a particular inspection case.

From an objective vantage point, the uncertainty of psychosocial effects is intrinsic to problems of multi-causality, individual variability, and reactivity to observation. Granted a hermeneutic point of view, the corresponding diagnostic problems are supposed to be handled by appropriate cooperative communication with employees concerned about work-related risks and illness. Thus, the methodological consequences for inspection are certainly very disparate depending on standpoint! That choice of standpoint may have important consequences also for the authority’s legal actions.

In practice, the inspection task is to recognize or facilitate the identification of work environment risks or illnesses. It should be a basis for proactive or ex-post actions. The effect-based perspective has a quite exclusive focus on the investigation parts of the IK provisions. It is not very different from ordinary work environment inspection in that respect. Consequently, it does not meet all criteria for system inspection according to the IK provisions. Theoretically, an ordinary focus inspection can be represented by a linear model, given that the inspectors’ role interactions do not bias the outcome of focus group discussions (cf. the example below).

Similarities of the model characteristics to real tendencies in supervising systematic work environment management. The increasing focus on psychosocial risks and work-related risks during the late 1990s brought about projects to develop some kind of effect-based inspection methods.

The best-known method is called ”Focus inspection” and developed at Yrkesinspektionen, Örebro district (2000). Its approach is consonant with Provision 4 by giving the employees an active role in the inspection. Some small focus groups of employees are selected to talk about the work environment conditions (D_E) with inspectors. The outcome of the talks is then communicated to the employer for possible action. It is assumed that the complications inherent in subjective communication can be controlled. Another notable complication for the inspectors is when there already are interpersonal conflicts among employees or between them and the employer. A still more difficult situation occurs when an inspection itself triggers a conflict or interferes with standard management in unplanned ways. The inspectors’ role and behavior are therefore potential bias factors. The project leaders discussed such threats in their report but asserted that an insightful hermeneutic approach could manage such biases.

A process perspective

Its model description proceeds from IK-provision 5, that is, ”internal control shall be naturally integrated with the operation and shall encompass all conditions of importance for the working environment.” This perspective uses the IK-provisions as input to a process of integration with the ordinary management of operations. Formally, the IK-provisions are conceived as a specific control model to be integrated into a corresponding model of operations. Because real operations and management systems differ among organizations and activities, it is necessary to represent all of those with a common general control model. This general model is formally similar to a so-called qualitative management system (e.g. the ISO 9000 family), which is probably known to most employers.

According to the process perspective, the system inspection then becomes a major intervention for developing systematic work environment management (IK or SAM). Figure 5 illustrates the thesis that a usual introduction to IK (C₁) probably cannot induce an integrated management system. What is needed is a complex inspector-employer interaction (B⇆C₂), which results in a local IK model of systematic work environment management.  The integration is assumed to be a nonlinear process, e.g. C₂ = f(C₁ ⊗ B).

The process perspective is assumed to evolve as a cognitive change of the employer during the inspection. The interaction manifests itself behaviorally as a mutual construction of a suitable local application of IK, also transferable to other problems and tasks. The inspection task demands a highly competent inspector, trained in this special kind of system inspection and also very familiar with the type of activities at the workplace. For the employer and the staff, the system inspection will be the beginning of a long-term project of improving the systematic work environment management. Occupational health services will be ready to provide intermittent project support.

The process perspective is similar to the effect-based approach regarding psychosocial problems. IK requires that psychosocial risks and effects are investigated and managed regularly as a consequence of work activities. Though in contrast to the effect-based approach, a forward inference chain is used. Work conditions are treated as potential causes to possible or existing indications of physical and psychic illness.

Limitations and strengths of a hypothetical process perspective.

One strength is that it attempts to include and integrate the IK requirements into the ordinary management system of operations. A related advantage is its use of a forward-directed inference chain from work conditions to effects of different types and levels. This is congruent with employers' way of proactive planning of activities. Its main limitation is the demand for highly qualified and experienced inspectors for a system inspection. A possible source of uncertainty in connection with the application is the demarcation between supervision by the inspection authority and support by the occupational health services.

Similarities to real realizations and tendencies in supervising systematic work environment management. A project with a process-directed perspective started in 1993 to develop an inspection method called PSI (Project-supported system inspection) at Yrkesinspektionen, Umeå district. Generally, the employers’ reactions to PSI were very positive. However, training and testing of a large number of work environment inspectors and aspirant inspectors with PSI showed that a significant minority had performance deficits in inspecting according to the method requirements.

On attempts to reconstruct past perspectives

Why bother with past perspectives?

The citation by Taleb (2010) in the introduction contains a general answer. He asserts that there is a need for meta-rules for reflection nowadays. Applying that thesis to project planning, it is relevant to ask whether past perspectives are evaluated thoroughly in essential ways before being assimilated or substituted by new ones. I am sure that many responsible officials would answer the question in the affirmative. There is a strong belief in progress in most rational projects.

Nevertheless, there are some reasons to question such beliefs regarding the initial part of project management. Initial planning is inherently uncertain but at the same time crucial for further project work. Early decisions on essential matters entail often decisive but unknown consequences. As is well known, results from follow-ups and evaluations in organizations are seldom satisfactorily validated according to scientific standards. Therefore, it seems appropriate to go back to past experiences and data and inquiry into how progress happens to realize through project development. The present focus on supervision is just a case in point.

How can past perspectives be studied?

Roughly speaking, an inquiry can have an empirical or a theoretical entry. The present case had a simple system theoretic frame. The perspectives were categorized regarding either how preconditions (i.e. IK-provisions) were administered (input), processed through management (throughput), or effecting the work environment (output). It may be advantageous to establish a categorization of possible basic elements and relations for the fuzzy concept ’perspectives’, before delving into detailed empirical evidence about inspection methods. One reason is that a suitable categorization could highlight fruitful theoretical contrasts between perspectives.

What comes out about different perspectives on supervising work environment management?

I think this brief inquiry on the complex subject of supervision does support the following two reflections:

The first and obvious one is that methods of supervision can be and generally are well suited to matters about physical work conditions, though not to social and psychological ones. The theoretical contrasts between the chosen ”model perspectives” elucidate some inherent deficits. A simplistic summary gives the following picture of problems when supervising organizational, social, and psychological work conditions:

The administrative model aims at formal rule compliance through means of general recommendations, prototypes, examples, etc of psychosocial conditions and indications. These means are supposed to make the purpose of Provisions understandable and to bridge the gap to possible effects and actions in the work environment. Even so, the impreciseness and ambiguities in the language of thoughts and feelings make this inspection task very difficult compared to its physical counterpart. Thus, the administrative perspective is restricted to verification in compliance with verbal rules at an early point of the effect chain. Such verification is vastly distant and also different from the validation of concrete psycho-social effects and goals at the end of an effect chain.

Its immediate contrast, the effect-based perspective, considers the effect-chain from the reverse angle. It collects the psychosocial evidence through direct dialogues with the employees. Notable is that the evidence is couched in everyday language, and it is subjective and not possible to use for strict causal inferences. These circumstances make it very difficult for an inspector to evaluate and notify deviations from IK provisions. The effect-based perspective’s limitation is the administrative’s strength and vice versa.

The process perspective differs from the other two by emphasizing neither the input nor the output but instead their interaction. The task is to manage cause-effect relations according to preconditions and goals – a control process. It is a cyclic process, where the management perspective evolves gradually. During the inspection, the inspector’s focus is on building the employer’s perspective in accord with the IK provisions. In that respect, it is absolutely necessary to provide the employer with some efficient tool for decision support to facilitate problem analysis and action planning.

Tentative conclusions on supervision in practice

The present exploration of perspectives on inspection gives rise to some caveats for supervision in general.

One common inadequacy involves the language for describing social and psychological qualities in connection with analysis, design, and evaluations of supervision. Descriptions usually consist of colloquialism or administrative terms. When a social science terminology is used, it predominantly represents conceptual macro-levels. But much inspection methodology concerns the thinking and acting of individuals in interpersonal micro contexts, for example, inspectors, employers, and safety agents in the present case study of inspection perspectives.  Therefore it is astounding that the conceptual framework of cognitive science seems to be missing in analyses and design of supervision.

A related possible lack of analytic ambitions involves the relative absence of clear theoretical statements about the activities concerned. Of course, it must have been conceptual discussions behind the design of Provisions and inspection methods, but I did not find many distinct theoretical formulations of core concepts in the plenty of published reports of the Swedish Work Environment Authority. This ”shortage” is probably an indication of a common conceptual framework or convention among authorities for describing their means and ends. However, there is a trend of using advanced scientific methods in the Armed Forces for analysis and evaluation of its strategic and tactical operations, besides the technical branches (RD1). Eriksson and Schäfer (2006) make some promising concluding remarks about the need for more advanced evaluation strategies for supervision.

References

AFS 1996:6. Internal Control of the Working Environment, Ordinance of the Swedish National Board of Occupational Safety and Health.

AFS 2001:1. Systematic Work Environment Management. Provisions of the Swedish Work Environment Authority.

Björkdahl, C. (2006). Arbetsmiljötillsynens effekter på regelefterlevnad, arbetsmiljö och sjukfrånvaro. En litteraturöversikt. Arbetsmiljöverket, Rapport 2006:8

Eriksson, O. & Schäfer, J. (2006). Evaluations 2003-2006. A Concise Review. Arbetsmiljöverket, Rapport 2006:15E

Frick, K. & Johansson, U. (2013). Systematiskt arbetsmiljöarbete – syfte och inriktning, hinder och möjligheter i verksamhetsstyrningen. Del I: En analys av svenska fallstudier. Arbetsmiljöverket, Kunskapssammanställning.

Frick, K. (2013). Systematiskt arbetsmiljöarbete – syfte och inriktning, hinder och möjligheter i verksamhetsstyrningen. Del II: Hur SAM genomförs i branscherna. Arbetsmiljöverket, Kunskapssammanställning.

Levin, R. (2002). Utvärdering av makro-metoden vid AI/Malmö. Slutrapport. Arbetsmiljöverket, Rapport 2002:4.

Lindblom, L. & Hansson, S.O. (2003). The Evaluation of Inspections.Arbetsmiljöverket, Rapport 2003:3

SWEA (2006). Återrapportering av uppdraget om tillsynsmetoder enligt regleringsbrevet för år 2005 (Till Näringsdepartementet). Arbetsmiljöverket.

Taleb, N.N. (2010). The Black Swan. The Impact of the Highly Improbable. London: Penguin.

Yrkesinspektionen, Örebro distrikt (2000). Fokusinspektion – en arbetsmetod för tillsyn av organisatoriska och sociala arbetsmiljöfrågor. Arbetsmiljöinspektionen och Samarbetsdynamik AB.

References to this website, www.arborg.se

RD1 – A case approach to study applied research methods.

RD3 – Elaborating the case approach to R&D of defense forces. 1 – Comments on the context of planning.

RD4 – Elaborating the case approach to R&D of defense forces. 2 – On bias in goal analysis for complex projects.

RD5 –  Elaborating the case approach to R&D of defense forces. 3 – Remarks on Planning Design and Dynamics of Goal Analysis.

RD6 –  Elaborating the case approach to R&D of defense forces. 4 – On formal procedures to support inventive planning: Case examples.

RD7 – On the choice of ”perspectives" when investigating complex phenomena.

RD8 – Unclear reasons behind diverse perspectives in initial project plans.

_____________________________________________________________________