A behavior-based safety (BBS) observation program is a systematic approach to reducing workplace injuries by identifying, measuring and reinforcing safe behaviors through structured peer observations and positive feedback. Rooted in applied behavior analysis (ABA), BBS programs have been shown to reduce recordable incident rates by 25-75% when implemented correctly. However, BBS is not without criticism - it can place excessive blame on workers while ignoring systemic issues. This guide covers the full spectrum: how to build an effective BBS program, how to avoid its pitfalls and how to integrate it with newer approaches like Human and Organizational Performance (HOP) for a balanced safety strategy.
The Applied Behavior Analysis Foundation
BBS did not originate in safety. It grew from the science of applied behavior analysis, which studies how environmental factors influence human behavior. Understanding this foundation is essential because it explains both why BBS works and where it falls short.
Core Principles of ABA Applied to Safety
Behavior is observable and measurable. ABA focuses on what people do, not what they think or feel. In safety terms, this means observing whether a worker wears their safety glasses - not whether they "believe in safety." This objectivity is a strength because it removes subjectivity from safety management. It is also a limitation because it can overlook the reasons behind behavior.
Free Download: 5 Safe Work Procedures
Choose from 112 professionally written SWPs. No credit card required.
Get Free SWPsBehavior is influenced by its consequences. People repeat behaviors that produce positive consequences and avoid behaviors that produce negative consequences. The timing and consistency of consequences matter enormously. A consequence delivered immediately after a behavior is far more influential than one delivered days later.
The environment drives behavior more than individual choice. This is perhaps the most misunderstood principle. True ABA recognizes that behavior is shaped by environmental conditions - tools, equipment, time pressure, supervision, peer norms and physical workspace design. Changing the environment is often more effective than trying to change individual behavior through training or motivation alone.
Positive reinforcement is more effective than punishment. Research consistently shows that positive reinforcement (adding something desirable after a safe behavior) produces more sustained behavior change than punishment (adding something undesirable after an at-risk behavior). Punishment suppresses behavior temporarily but does not build new habits.
The ABC Model: Antecedent, Behavior, Consequence
The ABC model is the analytical framework at the heart of every BBS observation. Understanding this model is essential for observers, supervisors and safety professionals.
Antecedents (A)
Antecedents are conditions that exist before a behavior occurs and influence the likelihood of that behavior. In safety, antecedents include:
| Antecedent Type | Examples | Influence on Behavior |
|---|---|---|
| Training | Safety orientation, toolbox talks, certification courses | Provides knowledge of safe procedures (necessary but insufficient alone) |
| Signage and labels | Warning signs, floor markings, SDS labels | Prompts safe behavior at the point of risk |
| Rules and procedures | SOPs, JSAs, permit-to-work requirements | Sets expectations for safe behavior |
| Equipment and tools | PPE availability, machine guarding, ergonomic tools | Makes safe behavior easier or harder |
| Peer norms | "Everyone on this crew wears their harness" | Creates social pressure to conform to safe (or unsafe) practices |
| Supervisor expectations | "My supervisor checks PPE before every shift" | Sets behavioral standards through leadership example |
| Time pressure | "We need this job done by end of shift" | Often drives at-risk behavior by making shortcuts seem rational |
| Physical environment | Lighting, housekeeping, workspace layout | Creates conditions that facilitate or hinder safe work |
Key insight: Antecedents set the stage but do not control behavior. Training someone on a procedure (antecedent) does not guarantee they will follow it. Consequences determine whether the behavior is repeated.
Behavior (B)
In BBS, behavior must be defined as observable and measurable actions. The quality of your observation data depends on how well you define the behaviors you are looking for.
Rules for defining observable behaviors:
- Use action verbs: "Worker secures ladder at three points" not "Worker uses ladder safely"
- Be specific: "Worker wears cut-resistant gloves rated A4 or higher" not "Worker wears gloves"
- Make it binary: The observer should be able to clearly mark "safe" or "at-risk" with no ambiguity
- Limit to observable actions: Do not include mental states like "Worker is aware of hazards"
Consequences (C)
Consequences are what happens after a behavior occurs. They are the primary driver of whether the behavior will be repeated. There are four types of consequences:
| Consequence Type | Definition | Safety Example | Effect on Behavior |
|---|---|---|---|
| Positive reinforcement | Adding something desirable | Supervisor thanks worker for correct lockout procedure | Increases safe behavior |
| Negative reinforcement | Removing something undesirable | Worker avoids back pain by using proper lifting technique | Increases safe behavior |
| Positive punishment | Adding something undesirable | Worker receives a written warning for violation | Temporarily suppresses at-risk behavior |
| Negative punishment | Removing something desirable | Worker loses overtime opportunity due to safety violation | Temporarily suppresses at-risk behavior |
Critical BBS principle: The most effective BBS programs rely heavily on positive reinforcement (recognizing safe behaviors) rather than punishment (penalizing at-risk behaviors). The ratio should be at least 4:1 - four positive recognitions for every corrective conversation.
Observer Training Program
The quality of your BBS program depends entirely on the quality of your observers. Poorly trained observers collect unreliable data, damage trust with workers and undermine the entire program. Invest heavily in observer training.
Observer Selection Criteria
Not everyone makes a good BBS observer. Select observers based on these criteria:
- Credibility: Workers respect them and view them as fair
- Communication skills: Can deliver feedback constructively, both positive and corrective
- Technical knowledge: Understand the work processes they will observe
- Commitment: Willing to dedicate consistent time to observations
- Objectivity: Can observe without bias, favoritism or prejudgment
The best BBS programs use peer observers (workers observing their colleagues) rather than relying solely on supervisors or safety professionals. Peer observers are less intimidating, more available during work and better understand the real-world challenges of the tasks being observed.
Observer Training Curriculum
A comprehensive observer training program requires 8-16 hours depending on the complexity of your operations. Cover these topics:
Module 1: BBS Foundations (2 hours)
- The science behind BBS: why observation and feedback work
- The ABC model and how to apply it
- The difference between safe behaviors, at-risk behaviors and conditions
- The role of the observer: coach, not cop
Module 2: The Observation Checklist (2 hours)
- How to use the observation form/checklist
- Each behavior category and what "safe" and "at-risk" look like
- How to remain objective and avoid interpretation
- Practice observations with video scenarios
Module 3: Conducting Observations (2 hours)
- Where and when to observe (representative sampling)
- How long to observe (typically 15-30 minutes per observation)
- How to be present without being intrusive
- Documenting observations accurately
- Practice: live observation exercise in the work area
Module 4: Delivering Feedback (2-4 hours)
- The feedback conversation model (see framework below)
- Positive reinforcement techniques
- How to discuss at-risk behaviors without blaming or shaming
- Handling defensive reactions
- Role-play exercises with feedback delivery
Module 5: Data Management (1-2 hours)
- How to enter observation data into the tracking system
- Data quality standards
- Common data entry errors and how to avoid them
- How observation data is used to improve safety
Module 6: Ongoing Calibration (ongoing, 1 hour quarterly)
- Inter-rater reliability exercises (multiple observers rate the same scenario)
- Discussion of challenging observations
- Updates to the checklist based on new hazards or processes
- Refresher on feedback techniques
Checklist Development
The observation checklist is the primary data collection instrument in your BBS program. A well-designed checklist produces reliable, actionable data. A poorly designed one produces noise.
Checklist Design Principles
Keep it focused: Include 20-40 observable behaviors organized into 5-8 categories. More than 40 items makes observations take too long and reduces data quality.
Make items binary: Each item should be clearly "safe" or "at-risk." Avoid scales (1-5 ratings) which introduce subjectivity.
Use operational definitions: Every item needs a clear description of what constitutes "safe" and what constitutes "at-risk." Do not assume observers share the same mental model.
Include a "not applicable" option: Not all behaviors are observable during every observation. Forcing observers to rate behaviors they did not actually see corrupts data.
Base items on your hazard data: Analyze your incident history, near-miss reports and inspection findings to identify the most critical behaviors to observe. The checklist should target behaviors that, if performed safely, prevent the most common and severe injuries at your facility.
Sample Observation Checklist Categories
| Category | Sample Behaviors (Safe/At-Risk) |
|---|---|
| PPE Usage | Correct eye protection worn / Eye protection missing or incorrect; Hard hat worn in required area / Hard hat absent; Gloves appropriate for hazard / Wrong gloves or no gloves |
| Body Position/Ergonomics | Proper lifting technique (legs, not back) / Bending at waist to lift; Eyes on path when walking / Distracted walking; Three-point contact on ladder / Free climbing |
| Tools and Equipment | Correct tool for the job / Improvised tool use; Tool in good condition / Damaged tool in use; Guards in place on machinery / Guards removed or bypassed |
| Housekeeping | Work area clean and organized / Debris, spills or clutter; Cords and hoses properly routed / Trip hazards present; Materials stored properly / Unstable stacking |
| Procedures and Permits | Following SOP for current task / Deviating from procedure; Required permits in place / Working without required permit; LOTO applied correctly / LOTO missing or incomplete |
| Line of Fire | Body positioned away from energy path / Standing in line of fire; Aware of overhead work / Under suspended load; Clear of moving equipment / In swing radius |
| Communication | Pre-task brief conducted / Work started without planning; Hand signals used with equipment / No communication during lifts; Warning others of hazards / Failing to communicate risks |
Feedback Techniques: The Heart of BBS
The observation itself is just data collection. The feedback conversation is where behavior change actually happens. This is the most skill-intensive aspect of BBS and the most common point of failure.
The SAFE Feedback Framework
Use this four-step model for every feedback conversation:
S - State what you observed
Describe the specific behavior you saw, without judgment or interpretation. "I noticed you secured the ladder at three points before climbing" or "I saw you lifting that box without bending your knees."
A - Ask about the situation
For at-risk behaviors, ask an open-ended question to understand the context. "Can you tell me about the situation? Was there something that made it difficult to do it the other way?" This step is critical because it often reveals systemic barriers that management needs to address.
F - Focus on the impact
Connect the behavior to its potential consequence. "When you use three-point contact, you prevent the falls that cause the most serious injuries on our sites" or "Lifting that way puts significant stress on your lower back, which is the number one injury in our facility."
E - Encourage the desired behavior
For safe behaviors: express genuine appreciation. "I appreciate you doing it right, especially when you're under time pressure. That's exactly the kind of leadership this crew needs." For at-risk behaviors: collaborate on a solution. "What would make it easier to use the correct technique consistently? Is there equipment or training that would help?"
Positive Reinforcement Best Practices
- Be immediate: Deliver recognition as soon as possible after observing the safe behavior. Same-day is good. Same-minute is better.
- Be specific: "You did a great job securing that scaffold before starting work" is far more effective than "Good job on safety today."
- Be sincere: Workers detect insincerity instantly. Only recognize behaviors you genuinely appreciate. Formulaic praise is counterproductive.
- Be proportional: Match the recognition to the significance of the behavior. A verbal thank-you for routine compliance; a more significant recognition for going above and beyond.
- Be varied: Alternate between verbal praise, written recognition, public acknowledgment and tangible rewards. Repetitive recognition loses impact.
- Be consistent: Recognize the same behavior every time you observe it, regardless of who performs it. Inconsistency signals favoritism.
Handling At-Risk Behavior Conversations
At-risk behavior conversations are more challenging but equally important. Follow these guidelines:
- Never use observation data for disciplinary purposes. This is a fundamental BBS principle. If workers fear that observations will be used against them, they will hide at-risk behaviors, defeating the program's purpose.
- Be curious, not accusatory. Assume the worker has a reason for the behavior. Often that reason reveals a systemic issue (broken equipment, unclear procedure, conflicting priorities).
- Focus on the behavior, not the person. "The ladder wasn't secured" not "You didn't secure the ladder." This distinction matters psychologically.
- Offer help. "What can I do to make it easier for you to follow the procedure?" shows partnership rather than policing.
- Follow up. If you discussed an at-risk behavior, check back within a few days. If the worker has changed the behavior, recognize it. If systemic barriers were identified, report them and follow up on the resolution.
Data Collection and Analysis
BBS generates valuable data, but only if it is collected systematically and analyzed effectively. Raw observation numbers are meaningless without context and trend analysis.
Key BBS Metrics
| Metric | Formula | What It Tells You | Target |
|---|---|---|---|
| Safe Behavior Percentage | (Safe observations / Total observations) x 100 | Overall compliance level for observed behaviors | 90%+ (varies by category) |
| Observation Frequency | Total observations per period / Target observations | Whether enough data is being collected | 95%+ of target |
| Observer Participation Rate | Active observers / Trained observers x 100 | Program engagement level | 80%+ |
| Category Trends | Safe % by category over time | Which behavior areas are improving or declining | Improving trend |
| At-Risk Behavior Frequency | Count of specific at-risk behaviors | Which specific behaviors need intervention | Decreasing trend |
| Barrier Identification Rate | Number of systemic barriers reported through observations | Whether the program is identifying root causes | Increasing (initially) |
Data Analysis Best Practices
Minimum sample size: You need at least 50-100 observations per category per month to identify meaningful trends. Fewer observations produce unreliable percentages that fluctuate randomly.
Stratify data: Analyze by department, shift, crew, job task and observer. This reveals patterns invisible in aggregate data. If night shift PPE compliance is 72% while day shift is 94%, you have found a targeted intervention opportunity.
Look for leading relationships: Track whether changes in observation data predict changes in incident data. If PPE compliance drops this month, do PPE-related injuries increase next month? These correlations validate your observation categories.
Share data transparently: Post observation results where workers can see them. Transparency builds trust and creates social motivation. Workers who see their crew trending upward take collective pride in maintaining the trend.
Digital observation platforms like Make Safety Easy's inspection tools automate data collection and analysis. Observers record findings on their mobile device and the system generates trend reports, identifies outliers and flags declining categories automatically.
Cultural Integration: Making BBS Stick
The most common reason BBS programs fail is cultural rejection. Workers view the program as surveillance, supervisors see it as paperwork and management treats it as a checkbox exercise. Successful programs are woven into the cultural fabric of the organization.
Gaining Workforce Buy-In
- Involve workers from day one: Include frontline workers in checklist development, program design and pilot testing. Programs designed by the safety department and imposed on workers fail at much higher rates than programs co-created with workers.
- Start with positive observations: Launch the program by focusing exclusively on recognizing safe behaviors for the first 30 days. This builds positive associations before introducing at-risk behavior conversations.
- Demonstrate responsiveness: When observations identify systemic barriers (broken equipment, unclear procedures, inadequate tools), address them visibly and quickly. Nothing destroys trust faster than asking workers to report issues that management then ignores.
- Protect observation data from discipline: Establish and enforce a clear policy that observation data will never be used for individual disciplinary action. This commitment must be absolute. One violation of this principle will destroy years of trust-building.
- Celebrate improvements: When observation data shows genuine improvement, celebrate it publicly. Connect the data to real outcomes - "Our line-of-fire safe behaviors improved from 76% to 91% this quarter and we had zero struck-by incidents."
Sustaining the Program Long-Term
Steering committee: Establish a BBS steering committee with representatives from all levels - frontline workers, supervisors, safety professionals and management. This committee reviews data monthly, identifies trends, recommends interventions and refreshes the program.
Observer recognition: Observers invest significant personal time and social capital in the program. Recognize their contribution through formal appreciation, additional training opportunities and voice in safety decisions.
Continuous checklist refinement: Review and update the observation checklist annually. Remove items that have reached consistently high compliance (above 97%) and add new items based on emerging hazards or incident trends.
Integration with incident investigation: When incidents occur, reference observation data to understand whether the contributing behaviors were already trending as at-risk. This validates the observation system and identifies gaps. Integrated incident reporting makes this correlation analysis practical.
Criticism and Limitations of BBS
No discussion of BBS is complete without addressing its significant criticisms. Understanding these limitations makes you a better safety professional and helps you avoid the traps that have discredited BBS in some organizations.
The "Blame the Worker" Problem
The most fundamental criticism of BBS is that it focuses on worker behavior as the primary cause of incidents, while the majority of incidents are caused by systemic factors - poor equipment design, inadequate procedures, production pressure, understaffing and organizational failures. When BBS is the only safety strategy, it becomes a sophisticated way to blame workers for management failures.
The reality: Research in high-reliability organizations shows that 70-90% of workplace incidents have significant organizational contributing factors. A worker who takes a shortcut is often responding rationally to time pressure, inadequate tools or conflicting priorities created by the organization. Observing and correcting that worker's behavior without addressing the underlying system is treating symptoms while ignoring the disease.
The Observation Paradox
Workers behave differently when they know they are being observed (the Hawthorne Effect). BBS data may reflect observed behavior rather than actual behavior. This raises questions about data validity and whether improvements are genuine or performative.
Reporting Suppression Risk
If BBS data is used to evaluate supervisors or departments, there is a risk that poor results are suppressed or manipulated. Observers may record more safe observations than at-risk observations to make their area look good.
Worker Alienation
In organizations where trust is already low, BBS can be perceived as "spying" on workers. This perception, whether accurate or not, poisons the program and broader safety culture. BBS requires a minimum level of organizational trust to function.
Diminishing Returns
BBS is most effective at addressing visible, observable behaviors. It is less effective at addressing complex decision-making, risk assessment and organizational factors. As an organization matures in its safety journey, BBS produces diminishing marginal returns and must be supplemented with other approaches.
HOP and Safety-II: Alternative Perspectives
Human and Organizational Performance (HOP) and Safety-II represent fundamentally different perspectives on safety management. Understanding these alternatives is essential for building a complete safety strategy.
Human and Organizational Performance (HOP)
HOP is built on five core principles:
- Error is normal. Humans make errors. This is not a character flaw to be corrected through observation and feedback. It is a fundamental characteristic of human performance that must be designed around.
- Blame fixes nothing. Focusing on who made the error prevents learning about why the error was possible. The question shifts from "Who did this?" to "Why did this make sense to the person at the time?"
- Context drives behavior. Workers make decisions based on local context - the tools available, the information they have, the time pressure they face. Understanding context is more valuable than observing behavior in isolation.
- Learning is vital. Organizations must learn from both failures and successes. The absence of incidents does not mean the system is safe - it may mean workers are compensating for systemic weaknesses that have not yet produced an incident.
- Response matters. How an organization responds to events shapes its future safety. Punitive responses drive reporting underground. Learning responses improve the system.
Safety-II
Traditional safety (Safety-I) focuses on what goes wrong - incidents, errors, violations. Safety-II focuses on what goes right - understanding how workers successfully navigate complex, variable and uncertain work conditions every day.
Safety-II key concepts:
- Work-as-done vs. work-as-imagined: Written procedures (work-as-imagined) rarely match how work is actually performed (work-as-done). The gap between the two is not a problem to be fixed - it is where safety actually lives. Workers adapt procedures to real-world conditions and these adaptations usually make work safer, not more dangerous.
- Everyday performance variability: Variability in how work is performed is the source of both success and failure. Eliminating variability (strict compliance) often reduces safety by preventing workers from adapting to conditions that procedures do not anticipate.
- Learn from success: Studying how work goes right (which is the vast majority of the time) provides more useful insights than studying the rare occasions when it goes wrong.
Comparison: BBS vs. HOP vs. Safety-II
| Dimension | BBS | HOP | Safety-II |
|---|---|---|---|
| Focus | Individual behavior | Organizational systems | System performance variability |
| View of workers | Agents whose behavior can be shaped | Problem solvers doing their best | Adaptive experts navigating complexity |
| View of error | Preventable through reinforcement | Normal and inevitable | Source of both failure and success |
| Primary method | Observation and feedback | Learning teams, event analysis | Understanding normal work |
| Primary question | "What did the worker do?" | "Why did it make sense?" | "How does work actually happen?" |
| Strength | Measurable, structured | Addresses systemic causes | Leverages worker expertise |
| Limitation | Can ignore systemic factors | Less structured, harder to measure | Abstract, difficult to operationalize |
Hybrid Approaches: Getting the Best of All Worlds
The most effective safety organizations do not choose between BBS and HOP. They build hybrid approaches that leverage the strengths of each while mitigating their limitations.
The Integrated Observation Model
Transform your BBS observation program by integrating HOP and Safety-II principles:
1. Observe behaviors AND conditions. When you observe an at-risk behavior, always look for the environmental factors that contributed to it. Was the right equipment available? Was the procedure clear? Was time pressure a factor? Document both the behavior and the context.
2. Ask "Why did that make sense?" When observers encounter at-risk behaviors, train them to ask this HOP-inspired question. The answer often reveals systemic issues that BBS alone would miss. Document these systemic findings alongside behavioral data.
3. Observe success as well as risk. Add a Safety-II element to your observations: ask workers to describe how they adapted to unexpected conditions. "I noticed you changed your approach midway through. What prompted that?" These conversations surface the adaptive expertise that keeps work safe.
4. Separate behavioral data from systemic data in your analysis. Track two streams: behavioral compliance trends (traditional BBS) and systemic barrier identification trends (HOP-inspired). Report both to leadership with different action tracks - behavioral trends drive training and reinforcement; systemic trends drive engineering and administrative controls.
5. Use learning teams for chronic at-risk behaviors. When observation data reveals persistent at-risk behaviors that do not respond to feedback and reinforcement, convene a learning team (HOP approach) to understand why the behavior persists. This is almost always a system problem, not a behavior problem.
Implementation Roadmap for Hybrid Programs
| Phase | Timeline | Focus | Key Activities |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phase 1 | Months 1-6 | Core BBS implementation | Checklist development, observer training, data collection, feedback skills |
| Phase 2 | Months 4-9 | Add context documentation | Train observers to document environmental factors, add condition tracking |
| Phase 3 | Months 7-12 | Integrate HOP principles | Learning teams for chronic at-risk behaviors, "why did it make sense" questioning |
| Phase 4 | Months 10-18 | Add Safety-II elements | Success observation, work-as-done mapping, adaptive expertise documentation |
| Ongoing | Monthly | Continuous improvement | Data review, checklist updates, observer calibration, steering committee |
Measuring BBS Program Success
Track these metrics to evaluate whether your BBS program is achieving its objectives:
Leading Indicators (Primary)
- Safe behavior percentage by category (trending upward)
- Observation completion rate against target (95%+)
- Observer participation rate (80%+ of trained observers actively conducting observations)
- Worker satisfaction with the feedback process (survey quarterly)
- Number of systemic barriers identified through observations (should be significant in early months)
- Barrier resolution rate (percentage of identified barriers addressed within 30 days)
Lagging Indicators (Secondary)
- TRIR trend (expect 15-30% reduction in first 12 months for well-implemented programs)
- DART rate trend
- Near-miss reporting rate (should increase as trust builds)
- Workers' compensation costs
- Incident types correlated with observed behavior categories
Program Health Indicators
- Observer attrition rate (high attrition signals burnout or disengagement)
- Data quality scores (inter-rater reliability checks)
- Feedback conversation quality (periodic ride-alongs with observers)
- Steering committee meeting attendance and action completion rate
- Worker voluntary participation (do workers approach observers or avoid them?)
For more on observation card programs and their implementation, see our guide on safety observation card programs. For a deeper analysis of BBS methodology and its evolution, read our article on behavior-based safety critical analysis.
Common BBS Implementation Mistakes
Avoid these errors that derail BBS programs:
1. Launching without leadership commitment. If senior leaders do not visibly support the program - conducting observations themselves, attending steering committee meetings, responding to systemic barriers - the program is dead on arrival.
2. Using observation data for discipline. The moment a supervisor uses an at-risk observation to justify a write-up, the program loses credibility with the entire workforce. This is the single most destructive mistake in BBS implementation.
3. Setting unrealistic observation targets. Requiring 20 observations per supervisor per week on top of their existing workload guarantees low-quality, check-the-box observations. Start with 3-5 per week and increase as the program matures.
4. Ignoring the data. Collecting observations without analyzing and acting on the data is worse than not collecting them at all. Workers who report barriers and see no response stop reporting.
5. Treating BBS as the complete safety solution. BBS addresses behavior. It does not replace engineering controls, hazard assessments, incident investigations or safety management systems. It is one tool in the toolkit, not the entire toolkit.
6. Skipping observer calibration. Without regular calibration sessions, observers drift in their interpretations of "safe" and "at-risk." Data quality degrades and trends become meaningless.
7. Making it a safety department program. BBS belongs to the organization, not the safety department. When workers view it as "the safety guy's thing," engagement collapses.
Getting Started: Your First 90 Days
Days 1-30: Foundation
- Secure leadership commitment and budget approval
- Form the BBS steering committee
- Analyze incident data to identify critical behaviors
- Develop the initial observation checklist with worker input
- Select and recruit the first cohort of observers
Days 31-60: Training and Pilot
- Train observers using the full curriculum
- Conduct calibration exercises
- Pilot the observation process in one department or area
- Gather feedback and refine the checklist and process
- Communicate the program to the broader workforce
Days 61-90: Launch and Learn
- Expand observations to all targeted areas
- Begin data analysis and trend reporting
- Address systemic barriers identified through observations
- Celebrate early wins and positive observation trends
- Conduct the first steering committee data review
Ready to digitize your BBS observation program? Schedule a demo of Make Safety Easy to see how our mobile observation tools, automated analytics and integrated reporting transform BBS from a paperwork exercise into a data-driven behavior change engine. Explore our pricing plans to find the right fit for your organization.