Skip to content
Client area
EN
Request a demo
QHSE · Quality, Hygiene, Safety and Environment · programme 05

Change perceptions

Make hygiene rules playful and less restrictive.

Why this programme

A rule that is imposed is a rule that gets worked around. The programme helps people rediscover your hygiene rules through play, explains the why behind each action, and lets teams suggest simpler ways of following them.

The revolutionary idea that defines the boundary between modern times and the past is the mastery of risk: the notion that the future is more than a whim of the gods and that men and women are not passive before nature.

Peter L. Bernsteineconomist and financial historianAgainst the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk, 1996

What your teams experience

  1. The why: match each rule to the risk it prevents.
  2. The gap hunt: spot the lapses in a realistic scene.
  3. The perfect technique: put a hygiene protocol from your operations back in the right order.
  4. Simpler: each team suggests a way to make a rule easier to follow.

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

Rules that are understood and accepted, and simplification ideas from the front line.

79 %

Eight in ten EU citizens (79%, up 6 percentage points) agree there are regulations in place to make sure that the food they eat is safe.

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)Special Eurobarometer 103.3 – Food safety in the EU, 2025

How we tailor it to you

Your wording, departments, figures and photos are built into the challenges and cinematic sequences, to the letter. The look follows your brand guidelines. Teams are formed on the spot or based on your organisation chart. The session report is delivered to you after the event.

The sources of this programme

Every game, measure and reminder in this programme builds on published research. The facilitator cites it in the debriefs, and you can check every reference.

  1. Pittet, D., Hugonnet, S., Harbarth, S., et al. (2000). Effectiveness of a hospital-wide programme to improve compliance with hand hygiene. The Lancet, 356(9238), 1307-1312. 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02814-2
  2. Erasmus, V., Daha, T. J., Brug, H., Richardus, J. H., Behrendt, M. D., Vos, M. C., & van Beeck, E. F. (2010). Systematic review of studies on compliance with hand hygiene guidelines in hospital care. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 31(3), 283-294. 10.1086/650451
  3. Sax, H., Allegranzi, B., Uçkay, I., Larson, E., Boyce, J., & Pittet, D. (2007). 'My five moments for hand hygiene': A user-centred design approach to understand, train, monitor and report hand hygiene. Journal of Hospital Infection, 67(1), 9-21. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17719685/
  4. World Health Organization (2009). WHO Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care: First Global Patient Safety Challenge, Clean Care is Safer Care. WHO/IER/PSP/2009/01 (rapport). www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241597906
  5. Grant, A. M., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). It's not all about me: Motivating hand hygiene among health care professionals by focusing on patients. Psychological Science, 22(12), 1494-1499. 10.1177/0956797611419172
  6. Srigley, J. A., Furness, C. D., Baker, G. R., & Gardam, M. (2014). Quantification of the Hawthorne effect in hand hygiene compliance monitoring using an electronic monitoring system: A retrospective cohort study. BMJ Quality & Safety, 23(12), 974-980. 10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003080
  7. Clayton, D. A., Griffith, C. J., Price, P., & Peters, A. C. (2002). Food handlers' beliefs and self-reported practices. International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 12(1), 25-39. 10.1080/09603120120110031
  8. Griffith, C. J., Livesey, K. M., & Clayton, D. A. (2010). Food safety culture: The evolution of an emerging risk factor? British Food Journal, 112(4), 426-438. 10.1108/00070701011034439
  9. Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science, 6, 42. 10.1186/1748-5908-6-42
  10. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280-285. 10.1126/science.3563507
The foundations shared by all our programmes (22 references)

The mechanics of our sessions: team play, the debrief, the before-and-after measure, spaced reminders.

  1. Nair, A. (2006). Meta-analysis of the relationship between quality management practices and firm performance—implications for quality management theory development. Journal of Operations Management, 24(6), 948-975. 10.1016/j.jom.2005.11.005
  2. Kaynak, H. (2003). The relationship between total quality management practices and their effects on firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 21(4), 405-435. 10.1016/S0272-6963(03)00004-4
  3. Sousa, R., & Voss, C. A. (2002). Quality management re-visited: A reflective review and agenda for future research. Journal of Operations Management, 20(1), 91-109. 10.1016/S0272-6963(01)00088-2
  4. Levine, D. I., & Toffel, M. W. (2010). Quality management and job quality: How the ISO 9001 standard for quality management systems affects employees and employers. Management Science, 56(6), 978-996. 10.1287/mnsc.1100.1159
  5. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. 10.2307/2666999
  6. Tucker, A. L., & Edmondson, A. C. (2003). Why hospitals don't learn from failures: Organizational and psychological dynamics that inhibit system change. California Management Review, 45(2), 55-72. 10.2307/41166165
  7. Reason, J. (2000). Human error: Models and management. BMJ, 320(7237), 768-770. 10.1136/bmj.320.7237.768
  8. Dekker, S. (2007). Just Culture: Balancing Safety and Accountability. Ashgate (ouvrage).
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62(1), 119-142. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1994.tb00797.x
  13. Reason, J., Parker, D., & Lawton, R. (1998). Organizational controls and safety: The varieties of rule-related behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71(4), 289-304. 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1998.tb00678.x
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. ISO 9001:2015. Quality management systems — Requirements. Organisation internationale de normalisation (norme). www.iso.org/standard/62085.html
  18. ISO 14001:2015. Environmental management systems — Requirements with guidance for use. Organisation internationale de normalisation (norme). www.iso.org/standard/60857.html
  19. ISO 45001:2018. Occupational health and safety management systems — Requirements with guidance for use. Organisation internationale de normalisation (norme). www.iso.org/standard/63787.html
  20. ISO 22000:2018. Food safety management systems — Requirements for any organization in the food chain. Organisation internationale de normalisation (norme). www.iso.org/standard/65464.html
  21. INNORPI, Institut national de la normalisation et de la propriété industrielle (Tunisie) : normalisation, certification NT, fiche de membre ISO (organisme). ; https://www.iso.org/member/2158.html www.innorpi.tn/
  22. TUNAC, Conseil national d'accréditation (Tunisie) : accréditation des organismes de certification (ISO/IEC 17021-1) et accords de reconnaissance mutuelle EA, ILAC, IAF (organisme). www.tunac.tn/

Before you book

What is digital team building?

A team building session in which teams play challenges on participants' phones while a big screen shows the running order, the scores and the cinematic sequences. A facilitator runs the room from start to finish. Everything happens in person.

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 “Change perceptions” in action.

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

Request a demo