Skip to content
Client area
EN
Request a demo
Automotive industry · programme 03

Make workshops safe

Make machine safety and co-activity the whole team’s business.

Why this programme

Presses, robots, forklifts, co-activity zones: the automotive workshop concentrates risks. The programme has teams spot dangerous situations in scenes taken from your own workshops and reinforces the rules on lockout, traffic flow and equipment. It complements your mandatory training without replacing it.

Jidoka is based on the concept of stopping immediately when abnormalities are detected to prevent defective products from being produced.

Toyota Motor CorporationToyota Production System, “Vision & Philosophy” page, 2024

What your teams experience

  1. The hazard scene: find every danger hidden in a projected workshop photo.
  2. Lockout: put the steps for making a machine safe back in the right order.
  3. Traffic flow: map out safe routes for pedestrians and forklifts on a plant layout.
  4. The near miss: each team describes a situation narrowly avoided and the fix they found.

Each activity opens and closes with a projected cinematic sequence, personalised for your teams. The facilitator sets the pace: nothing moves forward without them.

What the company gains

Safety rules reviewed as a team, more near misses reported, and a fresh look at risks that habit had made invisible.

3 298

Accidents at work claimed 3 298 lives in the EU in 2023; there were 2.83 million non-fatal accidents.

EurostatAccidents at work claimed 3 298 lives in the EU in 2023 (Eurostat news), 2025

Staging written for you

In your client area, a form specific to this programme collects your content, photos included: it is built into the challenges and cinematic sequences, exactly as you provide it. The look uses your logo and your colours. Teams are formed on the spot or based on your organisation chart.

Follow-up, up to D+30

Your follow-up dashboard stays with the programme, from the order to the final results.

  • After the session: the session report, with the gap between the opening and closing measures.
  • At D+7: a reminder asks a few key questions again, and the D+7 report shows what has been retained.
  • At D+30: a second reminder, and the D+30 report shows what holds over time.

Follow-up: before, during, after

The sources of this programme

The published research that this programme's games, measures and debriefs refer to. You can check every reference.

  1. Bulzacchelli, M. T., Vernick, J. S., Sorock, G. S., Webster, D. W., & Lees, P. S. J. (2008). Circumstances of fatal lockout/tagout-related injuries in manufacturing. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 51(10), 728-734. 10.1002/ajim.20630
  2. Chinniah, Y. (2015). Analysis and prevention of serious and fatal accidents related to moving parts of machinery. Safety Science, 75, 163-173. 10.1016/j.ssci.2015.02.004
  3. Jeelani, I., Albert, A., & Gambatese, J. A. (2017). Why do construction hazards remain unrecognized at the work interface? Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 143(5). 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001274
  4. Zohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in industrial organizations: Theoretical and applied implications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(1), 96-102. 10.1037/0021-9010.65.1.96
  5. Christian, M. S., Bradley, J. C., Wallace, J. C., & Burke, M. J. (2009). Workplace safety: A meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1103-1127. 10.1037/a0016172
  6. Neal, A., & Griffin, M. A. (2006). A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate, safety motivation, safety behavior, and accidents at the individual and group levels. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 946-953. 10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.946
  7. Hale, A., & Borys, D. (2013). Working to rule, or working safely? Part 1: A state of the art review. Safety Science, 55, 207-221. 10.1016/j.ssci.2012.05.011
  8. Phimister, J. R., Oktem, U., Kleindorfer, P. R., & Kunreuther, H. (2003). Near-miss incident management in the chemical process industry. Risk Analysis, 23(3), 445-459. 10.1111/1539-6924.00326
  9. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69-119. 10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1
  10. Howard, G. S. (1980). Response-shift bias: A problem in evaluating interventions with pre/post self-reports. Evaluation Review, 4(1), 93-106. 10.1177/0193841X8000400105
  11. Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. 10.2307/2666999
Further reading (3 references)

Other research we drew on to design this programme.

  1. ISO 45001:2018. Systèmes de management de la santé et de la sécurité au travail (norme), § 5.4 et § 8.1.2.
  2. ISO 12100:2010. Sécurité des machines — Principes généraux de conception — Appréciation du risque et réduction du risque (norme).
  3. ISO 14118:2017. Sécurité des machines — Prévention de la mise en marche intempestive (norme).
Shared foundations (7 references)

The mechanics of all our sessions (team play, the debrief, the before-and-after measure, spaced reminders) and the research that also underpins the other programmes in the same specialty or sector.

  1. Burke, M. J., Sarpy, S. A., Smith-Crowe, K., Chan-Serafin, S., Salvador, R. O., & Islam, G. (2006). Relative effectiveness of worker safety and health training methods. American Journal of Public Health, 96(2), 315-324. 10.2105/AJPH.2004.059840
  2. Tannenbaum, S. I., & Cerasoli, C. P. (2013). Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors, 55(1), 231-245. 10.1177/0018720812448394
  3. Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249-255. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
  4. Reason, J. (2000). Human error: Models and management. BMJ, 320(7237), 768-770. 10.1136/bmj.320.7237.768
  5. MacDuffie, J. P. (1995). Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: Organizational logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry. ILR Review, 48(2), 197-221. 10.1177/001979399504800201
  6. Shah, R., & Ward, P. T. (2003). Lean manufacturing: Context, practice bundles, and performance. Journal of Operations Management, 21(2), 129-149. 10.1016/S0272-6963(02)00108-0
  7. Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the Crisis. MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study (ouvrage).

Before you book

How is a Corporate Solutions experience different from team building?

It starts from a business objective, not an activity: onboarding new hires, preventing a risk, bringing your commitments to life. It is staged for your company, with your content, your figures and your brand. Your teams play in person, on their phones, while a big screen tells the story and a facilitator runs the room. And it is followed up: the session report, then the D+7 and D+30 reminders in your client area.

Do we need to install an app?

No. Participants scan a QR code and play in their phone's browser. No account, no password, no installation. It works on iPhone and Android.

Is there a limit on the number of participants?

No. The platform adapts to your headcount, from a small team to the whole company, in one or several rooms.

Demo

See “Make workshops safe” in action.

Thirty minutes on your premises. You play a challenge and see the report at the end.

Request a demo