The Misalignment of Safety Management and User Experience Design

A Case for Specialized Skill Integration

The intersection of safety management and user experience (UX) design presents a persistent challenge within organizational contexts: the assumption that domain expertise in safety inherently equips professionals to address UX considerations. This perspective parallels a common misstep in technology development, where software engineers, proficient in coding and system architecture, are tasked with graphic design and UX responsibilities. Research consistently demonstrates that such cross-disciplinary overreach yields suboptimal outcomes due to the distinct competencies required for each field (Norman, 2013). In safety management, the consequences of this misalignment are not merely aesthetic but functional, potentially undermining user adoption and operational efficacy. Shield Safety addresses this gap by integrating design thinking and UX principles—expertise I have cultivated over years of professional practice (see www.paulharrowux.com)—into a safety management framework that prioritizes both compliance and usability.

Delineating Competencies: Safety Management and User Experience Design

Safety professionals possess a specialized skill set centered on risk identification, regulatory adherence, and incident prevention. Their work is grounded in analytical rigor and procedural knowledge, ensuring that organizational systems mitigate harm and meet legal standards (Reason, 1997). User experience design, by contrast, requires a fundamentally different approach. UX encompasses the study of human behavior, cognitive psychology, and iterative design processes aimed at optimizing how individuals interact with systems (Nielsen & Norman, 2000). While safety expertise ensures a system’s protective capacity, UX expertise determines its accessibility, efficiency, and user satisfaction—attributes that demand empathy, usability testing, and a human-centered design methodology.

The distinction is critical. A safety professional may evaluate a digital incident reporting tool and deem it sufficient if it captures required data. A UX designer, however, assesses whether the tool’s interface supports seamless navigation, minimizes cognitive load, and sustains user engagement. Without this lens, modifications to system design risk being superficial, addressing isolated issues (e.g., a mislabeled container) while overlooking systemic usability flaws (e.g., an unintuitive workflow). Studies in human-computer interaction underscore this divide, noting that domain experts lacking design training frequently overestimate the usability of systems they develop (Bias & Mayhew, 2005).

Implications of Misaligned Expertise

The repercussions of conflating safety and UX competencies extend beyond inconvenience. In safety-critical environments, poorly designed systems can erode user trust and compliance. Research indicates that when interfaces are perceived as cumbersome or inefficient, users are more likely to bypass them, increasing the likelihood of unreported incidents and unaddressed risks (Endsley, 1995). For instance, a multi-step reporting process with ambiguous prompts may deter completion, not due to a lack of safety awareness but because of design-induced friction. Such outcomes reflect not a failure of intent but a failure of execution—one rooted in the absence of specialized UX knowledge.

This phenomenon mirrors findings in software engineering, where developers assigned to visual design tasks produce interfaces that meet technical specifications yet fail to resonate with end users (Cooper, 2004). The parallel underscores a broader principle: expertise in one domain does not confer proficiency in another. In safety management, the stakes are elevated, as usability directly influences the reliability of risk mitigation strategies.

Shield Safety’s Integrated Approach: Leveraging Design Thinking

Shield Safety distinguishes itself by rejecting the assumption that safety expertise alone can address UX challenges(and safety, by nature, is repleat with UX challenges). Instead, our methodology integrates design thinking—a structured, iterative process emphasizing user empathy, problem definition, ideation, prototyping, and testing (Brown, 2008)—with safety management principles. My professional background in design thinking and UX, detailed at www.paulharrowux.com, informs this approach, enabling the development of systems that align regulatory requirements with user needs.

Consider the design of a safety reporting tool. A conventional approach might prioritize data collection fields mandated by compliance standards, resulting in a functional but unwieldy interface. Shield Safety, by contrast, employs design thinking to map the user journey, identifying pain points such as excessive navigation or unclear instructions. Prototypes are tested with end users—workers, supervisors, and auditors—to refine the system’s structure, ensuring it facilitates rather than obstructs engagement. The outcome is a tool that not only meets safety objectives but also enhances operational efficiency through intuitive design.

This integration reflects evidence-based best practices. Studies of design-driven organizations reveal that embedding UX expertise into product development yields higher user satisfaction and adoption rates (Forrester Research, 2018). Shield Safety applies this insight to safety management, recognizing that effective systems must serve both organizational goals and human users.

Conclusion: Specialization as a Strategic Imperative

The tendency to task safety professionals with UX responsibilities parallels the misplacement of software engineers in interface design roles—an overreach that compromises outcomes due to mismatched skill sets. Shield Safety’s approach demonstrates that safety management benefits from the deliberate incorporation of design thinking and UX expertise. By respecting the boundaries of professional disciplines and leveraging specialized knowledge, we deliver systems that uphold safety standards while optimizing usability.

For further insight into the application of design thinking and UX principles, visit www.paulharrowux.com. At Shield Safety, we are committed to advancing safety management through a lens of user-centered design—an approach that ensures our solutions are as effective in practice as they are in principle.

References

• Bias, R. G., & Mayhew, D. J. (2005). Cost-Justifying Usability: An Update for the Internet Age. Morgan Kaufmann.

• Brown, T. (2008). Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92.

• Cooper, A. (2004). The Inmates Are Running the Asylum: Why High-Tech Products Drive Us Crazy and How to Restore the Sanity. Sams Publishing.

• Endsley, M. R. (1995). Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 32–64.

• Forrester Research. (2018). The Business Impact of Investing in Experience. Forrester Consulting.

• Nielsen, J., & Norman, D. A. (2000). Usability Engineering. In The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook (pp. 165–186). CRC Press.

• Norman, D. A. (2013). The Design of Everyday Things. Basic Books.

• Reason, J. (1997). Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents. Ashgate Publishing.