Safety Product Innovation 1 ASAC 2012 A Theory of Safety Product Innovation: The Case of the National Hockey League The purpose of this paper is to develop a theory for the diffusion of safety products in the workplace based on the adoption of safety products in the National Hockey League. We develop the concept of safety product innovations (SPI) which is defined as new products (i.e., after adoption by workers) designed to decrease the likelihood of sustaining an injury in the workplace. To illustrate the factors affecting the adoption of SPI’s we investigate the adoption of hockey equipment in the NHL. By the age of 22, Sidney Crosby had won a Stanley Cup, an Olympic gold medal, a National Hockey League (NHL) scoring title, and an NHL MVP award. At the time, Crosby was viewed as the best hockey player in the sport, and it seemed as if nothing could stop the former number one draft pick. That all changed on January 5, 2011, when the young centre suffered hits to the head in two consecutive games. Crosby experienced concussion symptoms and went on to miss the last 41 games of the season and the first 20 games of the 2011-2012 season. With the NHL’s best player kept off the ice for almost one year; and high profile players in the other major sports leagues also sidelined due to head injuries; the topic of head injuries and protecting the
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Safety Product Innovation 1
ASAC 2012
A Theory of Safety Product Innovation:
The Case of the National Hockey League
The purpose of this paper is to develop a theory for the diffusion of safety products in the
workplace based on the adoption of safety products in the National Hockey League. We develop the
concept of safety product innovations (SPI) which is defined as new products (i.e., after adoption by
workers) designed to decrease the likelihood of sustaining an injury in the workplace. To illustrate the
factors affecting the adoption of SPI’s we investigate the adoption of hockey equipment in the NHL.
By the age of 22, Sidney Crosby had won a Stanley Cup, an Olympic gold medal, a National
Hockey League (NHL) scoring title, and an NHL MVP award. At the time, Crosby was viewed as the
best hockey player in the sport, and it seemed as if nothing could stop the former number one draft pick.
That all changed on January 5, 2011, when the young centre suffered hits to the head in two consecutive
games. Crosby experienced concussion symptoms and went on to miss the last 41 games of the season
and the first 20 games of the 2011-2012 season. With the NHL’s best player kept off the ice for almost
one year; and high profile players in the other major sports leagues also sidelined due to head injuries; the
topic of head injuries and protecting the players has flooded the media. The NHL is attempting to
improve the equipment and safety products used by the players to decrease the incidence of head injuries
without negatively affecting the entertainment aspect of the game. The purpose of this paper is to develop
a theory for the diffusion of safety products in the workplace based on the adoption of safety products in
the NHL.
Introduction
Safety Product Innovation 2
As industries continue to evolve and become even more technologically advanced, concerns and
precautions of workplace safety are also evolving with the goal of reducing the incidence of workplace
injuries across all industries. This research is very timely, as workplace safety is receiving more attention
in work environments and in the media across North America. We classify current research on workplace
safety initiatives into three broad categories, safety behaviours, the environment, and safety products.
The literature on workplace safety includes examples of safety behaviours, safe work
environments and safety products (Shannon, Robson, and Sale, 2001). There is a paucity of literature,
however, on how these safety product innovations arise and diffuse among the workforce. To fill this gap
in the literature, we investigate the adoption of safety products, and present the concept of safety product
innovations (SPI’s). The innovation literature differentiates between innovations and inventions, wherein
“An invention does not become an innovation until it has processed through production and marketing
tasks and is diffused into the marketplace” (Garcia & Calantone, 2002, p. 112). Thus, products designed
to improve workplace safety become SPI’s once adopted in the workplace, and until adoption, they
remain inventions. We define SPI’s as new products (i.e., after adoption by workers) designed to decrease
the likelihood of sustaining an injury in the workplace. SPI’s are designed to reduce the risk of injury in
the workplace, however the literature shows that many workers resist the adoption of SPI’s even when
aware of the inherent risks of not using SPI’s. Many factors affect the adoption of SPI’s, and
understanding the adoption process will assist in the design of SPI’s, and introduction of SPI’s in the
workplace.
To illustrate the factors affecting adoption of SPI’s we investigate the adoption of hockey
equipment in the National Hockey League (NHL) and aim to investigate adoption rates of SPI’s
introduced by the workers (i.e., the players) and SPI’s introduced by the employer (i.e., the NHL). The
NHL and other professional sports leagues are experiencing criticism for the high incidence of injuries
sustained by the players. In response to the criticism, the NHL is continuing to improve the standards of
safety equipment used within the league. Hockey equipment has evolved from simple homemade padding
Safety Product Innovation 3
to advanced lightweight products; however, the NHL has traditionally taken a considerable amount of
time before mandating the use of SPI’s. Similar to mandatory use of SPI’s in other industries, some
hockey equipment in the NHL is mandated and all players must adopt the equipment in order to play. We
investigate the diffusion of SPI’s within the NHL to establish a theory of SPI diffusion, and to provide a
starting point for future research on the adoption of SPI’s in the workplace.
Background Literature
Workplace safety. Injuries in the workplace occur on a daily basis across all industries. Injuries
and accidents in the workplace are prevalent despite efforts to improve workplace safety (Holcom,
Lehman, & Simpson, 1993). In 2001, the cost of all unintentional workplace injuries in the United States
amounted to $132 billion and organizations lost approximately 130 million workdays due to injuries (Seo,
2005). Aside from sustaining a physical injury, the threat of suffering an injury at work is a source of
considerable stress for employees when their perceived work environment is unsafe (Cox, 1997). To
reduce stress experienced by the employees, managers can increase their commitment to safety and
promote employee participation in safety programs (Hoffman & Stetzer, 1996). Seo (2005) found that
higher perceived safety climate is a significant causal predictor of higher levels of safety behaviour and
can counteract the strain and other ill effects experienced when the demands of the job are viewed as
outside the worker’s control (Karasek, 1979). The physical consequences of working in an unsafe
environment, and the ergonomics of the work environment can determine the workers’ quality of health
and life outside of the workplace (Cox, 1993; Cox, 1997; Kirschenbaum, Oigenblick, & Goldberg, 2000).
The interpersonal and psychosocial aspects of the workplace can also negatively affect the relationships
and personal health of the employees (Pugliesi, 1999).
Shannon, Robson, and Sale (2001) provide an extensive list of research on workplace safety
focusing on the risk behaviours affecting workplace safety and the traditional workplace health promotion
(WHP) programs designed to reduce the incidence of injury. WHP programs and other safety initiatives
Safety Product Innovation 4
focus on changing the individual behaviours of the workers, however the programs often receive low
levels of participation, and safety behaviours often decrease with time (Shannon et al., 2001). While
interventions to change individual behaviours have improved workplace safety, to maximize workplace
safety, the safety system and culture must be addressed (Shannon et al., 2001; Hale & Hovden, 1998).
Safety equipment is also used to reduce the incidence of workplace injuries, however the time taken for
employees to adopt safety products can vary. Buxton’s (1946) study of coal miners showed that some
workers do not adopt the safety products until forced to do so by industry or organizational regulations.
Safety product innovations. Safety product innovation (SPI) is a classification for a product that is
used by workers in a workplace to decrease the likelihood of sustaining an injury. SPI’s are new products
designed to meet the unique demands of a work environment and the specific tasks the workers undertake
on a daily basis. A SPI is a broad classification that encompasses other safety products like personal
protective equipment (PPE). PPE is worn to protect the wearer’s body from injury in work, sports, and
combat situations (Peoples, Gerlinger, Craig, & Burlingame, 2005). The introduction of SPI’s to an
industry and the adoption by employees and management has been virtually unstudied. Current research
alarmingly shows that a high percentage of SPI’s are introduced following serious injuries in the
workplace (Stout & Linn, 2002). Understanding the reasons SPI’s are introduced, and who introduces
them can assist in determining the most effective method of diffusing SPI’s. Another gap in the literature
on SPI’s is the process by which the innovations become regulated and adopted within industries, and at
what point they become mandated by a regulating body. Exploring the origins of SPI’s and the parties
that introduce the innovations to an organization or an industry can assist in understanding the process of
SPI diffusion.
SPIs and workplace safety programs have reduced the incidence of workplace injuries over the
last century. Catastrophes throughout history (e.g., the mining explosion at Monongah, West Virginia,
that killed 362 men) have increased awareness that high risk of injury or death at work is not acceptable
(Stout & Linn, 2002). “Risk” is the probability of physical harm, and “accidents” are the unexpected
Safety Product Innovation 5
failures of “safety” which is the steady state of injury prevention (Turner & Tennant, 2009). The high
incidence of workplace accidents has resulted in the development of preventive strategies such as
legislation and regulation of mandatory safety practices and equipment. Following the 1972 disaster at
Sunshine Mine near Kellogg, Idaho, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) was formed and
the MSHA mandated that all miners carry breathing devices (Stout & Linn, 2002). Workplace safety
initiatives (i.e., WHP programs and other safety guidelines) and products are often introduced following a
safety disaster or a series of accidents in the workplace. In mines, increased ventilation, explosion-proof
equipment, rock dusting, and the development of rescue plans, strict smoking policies, and safety teams
have increased the likelihood of miners surviving explosions and fires (Stout & Linn, 2002).
SPIs utilized within safety programs further minimize the incidence of workplace injuries. In
most cases, the use of SPI’s alone cannot prevent injury and employees can experience a false sense of
security when using SPI’s. An example of this behaviour is the tendency for individuals driving vehicles
to drive less carefully when wearing a seatbelt (Cohen & Einav, 2003; Peltzman, 1975). A collective
approach to safety can decrease the incidence of workplace injury through the combination of safety
behaviours and the use of safety products. SPI’s like personal protective equipment (PPE) play
instrumental roles in reducing injuries and illnesses when used appropriately, however workers frequently
complain of equipment being uncomfortable and the equipment is often discarded (Nunneley, 1989).
Improper fit and the added weight of PPE creates discomfort, and perceptions of the equipment being
unfashionable can negatively affect usage (Akbar-Khanzadeh, Bisesi, & Rivas, 1995). According to
Akbar- Khanzadeh et al. (1995), managers should solicit employees’ assistance in the selection and
testing of PPE and the more the wearer knows about the equipment and its purpose, the greater the
likelihood the correct PPE will be worn consistently.
The demand for safety products differs across industries and safety products are enhanced and
tailored to meet the specific needs of an industry. The hazardous work circumstances that often precede
workplace injuries (Turner, Chmiel, Hershcovis, & Walls, 2010) differ between industries, and therefore
Safety Product Innovation 6
different industries require unique SPI’s to meet industry-specific safety needs. Some of examples of
SPI’s include: breathing devices, steel-toe boots, knee pads, and helmets for miners (Buxton 1946; Stout
& Linn, 2002); ear protectors, goggles, safety gloves, safety boots, helmets and leg protectors in the
logging industry (Klen &Vayrynen, 1983); and respirators (e.g. particulate air filter respirators), face
shields, rubber boots for pesticide exposure, sunscreen (Schenker, Orenstein, & Samuels, 2002), and
hearing protection on farms (Reed, Browning, Westneat, & Kidd, 2006).
Diffusion of innovations. Extensive research exists on the different models and processes of
innovation diffusion. Understanding the market in which an innovation will be introduced is essential for
the commercial success of a product (Dougherty, 1990), and understanding the diffusion process is
important for entrepreneurs and managers when identifying markets. The diffusion of innovations can
affect the development of marketing strategies, product design, and the business plan; however, new
product developers often fail to accurately assess the market (Cooper & Kleinschmidt, 1986). The market
and target population must be accurately assessed in the development of effective SPI’s. If innovators
neglect to assess the needs of the targeted individuals, adoption of the SPI’s is less likely to occur.
The diffusion of innovations is one of the major mechanisms of social and technical change
(Katz, Levin, & Hamilton, 1963). Diffusion is the process by which an innovation spreads, and the
diffusion process is the spread of a new idea from its source of invention or creation to its ultimate uses or
adopters (Rogers, 1962). From a sociological perspective of diffusion, Katz (1961) stated that social
structures serve as boundaries within which innovations spread. Social structures such as social norms,
different degrees of social integration, or status variations within the larger social structure, can affect the
rate of adoption. Rogers (1962, p. 12) lists four crucial elements in the analysis of the diffusion of
innovations: (1) the innovation, (2) its communication from one individual to another (3) in a social
system (4) over time. Individuals adopt new ideas at different times, and according to Rogers (1962),
innovativeness is a continuous dimension and early adopters are more innovative than other adopters are.
The diffusion of innovations within a social group has been researched using different models (Mahajan
Safety Product Innovation 7
& Peterson, 1978; Wind, Mahajan, & Cardozo, 1981), with the majority of the models including a
diffusion rate at time t (Sultan, Farley, Lehmann, 1990; Mahajan & Peterson, 1985).
Adoption is a decision process on the part of the adopter that is affected by the product, and the
individuals’ characteristics such as age, social status, financial position, area of specialization, cognitive
ability, and communication behaviours (Bernhardt & Mackenzie, 1972; Rogers, 1962). According to
Rogers (1962) adoption or rejection of an innovation takes place in several stages, and begins with
awareness of an innovation and the formation of an attitude based on the individual’s perception of the
innovation. After developing a perception of the innovation, the individual decides to confirm or reject
the innovation, then implements it and then confirms his/her decision.
Rogers’ (1962) model of diffusion is an orderly sequence of events, in which all members of a
population eventually adopt an innovation. The present paper seeks to understand the adoption rates of
SPI’s in the workplace, and to understand the patterns of adoption and the groups of workers that adopt
the SPI in different stages before the SPI is mandated. The model proposed by Rogers (see Figure 1)
includes the most widely accepted method of adopter categorization (Mahajan, Muller, & Srivastava,
1990). A normal curve of distribution displays the five different adopter categories based on relative time
of adoption of the innovation (See Figure 1). “Innovators” are the first 2.5% of the individuals to adopt a
new idea, and early adopters are comprised the next 13.5% of adopters. The “early majority” includes the
next 34% of the adopters; the “late majority” is comprised of 34% of the total adopters; and the final 16%
of adopters are the “laggards”.
Safety Product Innovation 8
A select few innovators in a social group initially adopt a product; influencing others group
members to adopt (Schmittlein & Mahajan, 1982). According to Rogers and Shoemaker (1971),
interpersonal communication is accountable for rapid growth in the diffusion process. Mahajan et al.
(1990) analyzed the literature on the importance of adopter categories, and posited that adopter categories
can assist in targeting the potential innovators for a new product, and can assist in predicting the
continued acceptance of a product and in the development of market strategies for the different adopter
categories. Rogers’ model was used to analyze the implementation and adoption of new practices and
innovations in clinical settings (Landrum, 1998; Lee, 2004; Lekan-Rutledge, 2000). Lee (2004) used
Rogers’ model to describe nurses’ behaviours during the process of adopting workplace innovations (i.e.,
computers for patient care and documentation). However, Rogers’ model of diffusion has been criticised
for its’ assumption that all members adopt an innovation. Mahajan and Peterson (1985) present other
adopter distributions, and Peterson (1973) argues that in most marketing situations new products are
likely to exhibit non-normal adoption distributions.
Methods
Figure 1. Rogers Model of Diffusion (Rogers, 1962)
Safety Product Innovation 9
We adopt an inductive case study design (Yin, 2008) to develop a theory for the diffusion of
SPI’s. The focal case is the NHL, with a specific interest in the development of SPIs in this setting. To
develop the in-depth case study we draw on books, articles, websites, blogs and other secondary sources
of data. We also draw on the review of workplace safety, innovation, and diffusion literature, to frame
our study of SPIs adopted by the players in the NHL. Identifying the initial adopters (i.e., the innovators)
of a SPI is central to understanding the diffusion process. The relationship between the innovating body
(i.e., the worker or the employer) and the time taken for 100% adoption also remains unstudied. Employer
regulated SPI’s require all employees to use the innovation in the workplace and workers not complying
with the mandate are refused the right to work. We observe the NHL’s process of mandating SPI’s and
present several propositions for the diffusion of SPI’s.
The Case of SPIs in the NHL
The National Hockey League
The NHL is regarded as the world’s elite level of professional hockey competition (Perlini &
Halverson, 2006). After the National Hockey Association (NHA) disbanded, the NHL was organized in
1917, in Montreal, Quebec. At its birth, the league was comprised of four teams, but through expansions,
contractions and relocations the league now boasts 30 active franchises. Rivalries between teams have
been present for decades, especially between members of the “original six” teams (i.e., the Boston Bruins,
Chicago Blackhawks, Detroit Red Wings, Montreal Canadiens, New York Rangers, and the Toronto
Maple Leafs) that all date back to the NHL’s first decade, and pre-date the other 24 teams by over forty
years. As the fans embrace the rivalries, the NHL continues to reach new financial milestones and set new
revenue records. The NHL set an all-time sponsorship record in 2010-2011, and netted more than $2.9
billion after the 2011 Stanley Cup Playoffs, which made it the fifth consecutive year of record total
revenue (NHL, 2011).
Safety Product Innovation 10
We argue that NHL players are equivalent to employees of the NHL. As employees, the players
deserve the same rights awarded to workers in other industries. In 1967, the NHL Players’ Association
(NHLPA) was established as the labour union for the professional hockey players in the NHL (NHLPA,
2011). The NHLPA represents NHL players in all matters dealing with their rights and working
conditions, and assures that the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement are met. The players elect
representatives from the 30 teams to form the Executive Board that provides assistance and guidance to
members of the union.
Injury in hockey. Hockey is one of the fastest and most violent games in the world (Sim, Simonet,
Melton, & Lehn, 1987) and hockey players are at risk of sustaining injury each time they step on the ice.
In the NHL there were over 1000 injuries accounting for over 6000 missed games during the 2000-2001
season (Janski & Meyer, 2004). Sim et al. (1987) collected data on the incidence of injuries in numerous
leagues and from different age groups (i.e., prior to the mandatory use of helmets or face masks), and
found facial contusions and lacerations to be the most frequent type of injury sustained by hockey players
(i.e., 75% of all injuries). The majority of injuries occurred in the head, scalp, face, or eye region. A study
conducted by Hayes (1975) included twenty-one Canadian, and nine American college hockey teams
during the 1970-1971 season, and found an incidence of 1.17 injuries per team per game. Tegner and
Lorentzon (1991) observed all twelve Swedish elite hockey teams during the 1988-1989 season and found
the overall incidence of injury to be 53.0 per 1000 player-game hours. Injuries suffered in hockey can be
very severe, and in Canada, hockey is the cause of several spinal injuries and deaths each year (Tator &