User adoption…

Information density.

How many choices should your end users have? How much information should be presented, how many mandatory fields are there in the form, how quickly are you asking for people to grasp concepts and make choices?

Consider two options:

1/When talking to an amateur, to a stranger, to a newbie, to someone who isn’t committed, someone that only uses the system infrequently, the best path is clarity, which means simplicity.

Few choices, no guessing, no hunting around.

2/When talking to a fellow EHS professional, to a peer, to someone in the same groove as you, the goal is to maximize useful density of choice. Put as much power in the hands of this user as possible.

If you’re a frustrated user, it’s likely that the EHS professional has made a mistake and either split the difference in how much information and power was conveyed or missed the mark entirely in one direction or the other.

The detail required in the investigation stage of Incident Management ought to be far more information rich than the initial report of an Incident.

The texture of your Non-Conformance report ought to be deeper and more sophisticated than it should be when you’re asking all your employees to spot and report Hazards.

In the same way a menu at a fancy restaurant should probably have more choices and more detail than one at a fast food joint.

One of the reasons to study EHS and becoming a pro is so that you can earn the right to speak and be spoken to in shorthand, and to be given the pro version of the dashboard.

On the other hand, if you’re after user adoption of your EHS initiative, consider implementing a super-simple data-poor first response application. Avoid complexity.

At the same time, offer the power users, the pro’s, the power they need to manage risk.

All this flexibility and power in the same application. Configured to achieve your unique objectives.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Incident.Cloud’s story.