All courses / AI Boss / Module 2 / Chapter 6
Learning objectives
After the lesson the participant can:
- Describe the four parts of a rate system and the point at which M2 Evaluation becomes M3 Consequence.
- Separate what each source in the chapter reported about pace and injury from what is disputed.
- Explain why a software-generated target is a predetermined work-rate under the Framework Directive.
- Assess a pace or rate system as a work-environment risk together with a safety representative.
Key concepts
- Rate system
- Four parts: a target stating units per period; a measurement that is a by-product of directing the work; a comparison giving a rate and time off task per person; and a follow-up that attaches a message, warning or termination to the figure.
- Time off task
- A measure of the minutes in which the device recorded no work. Under the chapter's design rules a time-off-task rule never governs breaks.
- Predetermined work-rate
- The Framework Directive, Article 6(2)(d), requires the employer to adapt work to the individual, in particular to alleviate monotonous work and work at a predetermined work-rate. A target generated by software is such a rate.
- Follow-up rule
- The written rule for what follows a missed target. By default it opens a conversation about the work, never an automated warning; the conversation after the flag is part of the system.
- Team-level strain indicators
- Indicators such as missed breaks, late finishes and contested routes, agreed with representatives before any figure is shown and reported monthly with a minimum group size of ten by default.
Interactive exercises
Do them here and get feedback at once. Choose a card and then where it belongs, or drag it.
Interactive exercise 1 · Put in order
Assessing a pace system as a work-environment risk
Put the steps of the chapter's practical guide in order, as the line manager and the safety representative carry them out.
Interactive exercise 2 · Scenario
A visit that ran long
Apply the follow-up rule of the Strandvik risk assessment WRA-NR-HC-01 to the situation below.
Teaching plan
| 10 min | The teacher draws the pace loop of Figure 6.1 and the three properties that distinguish a rate system from the stopwatch of scientific management. |
| 15 min | Source work: groups take the 2019 filing, the 2021 injury analysis, the 2024 Senate report with the company's reply, and the French decision, and report what each says and what is contested. |
| 15 min | Presentation of the employer's duty and the seven design rules; discussion of the home-care difference, that a visit running long may be the work done well. |
| 25 min | Exercise: groups write a risk assessment of the pace parameters of one system, following the practical guide and WRA-NR-HC-01. |
| 10 min | Debrief: each group reads its follow-up rule and stop path aloud; the room checks whether the controls sit in the parameters or ask workers to cope. |
Discussion
- The Conseil d'Etat treated the same timestamps differently depending on purpose and what follows from them. How would you document the purpose of an indicator so that it cannot quietly become a speed target?
- The chapter says a supervisor who set the pace by hand also saw the person who could not keep it. Who sees that person in a workplace you know where a parameter sets the pace?
- California's law treats a quota as a written document that can be requested and contested. What would it change if every parameter that sets pace in your organisation had that form?
Written exercise
Exercise · 25 minutes
Risk assessment of a pace system
Working as a line manager and a safety representative, assess one system that sets, measures or enforces pace: the planned visit times at the Strandvik home-care unit, a claims queue at Hansa Mutual, or a system of your own. Name each parameter that changes pace (target formula, planned durations, transition allowances, thresholds) and give each an owner. For each, assess the physical and psychosocial hazards and those arising from the follow-up, and set a control in the parameter itself. Write the follow-up rule, choose team-level strain indicators with a minimum group size, name who can suspend the figures, and list the triggers for reassessment.
Deliverable: A risk assessment in the form of WRA-NR-HC-01: pace parameters with owner and control, written follow-up rule, strain indicators and reporting level, stop path and reassessment triggers.
Self-test
Choose an answer to see whether it is right, or open the answer below each question.
In WRA-NR-HC-01, what does control P2 do with the overrun shown per visit on the dashboard?
Show the answer
B. It shows overruns per route and week, with the individual view only on request and logged
P2 removes the per-visit overrun from the manager's first view, because in home care a long visit is often the work done well; the individual view remains available on request and is logged.What did the Conseil d'Etat uphold when it reduced the CNIL's fine against Amazon France Logistique to EUR 15 million?
Show the answer
D. That keeping every indicator for every employee for 31 days breached data minimisation
The court disagreed with the CNIL on the fast-scan and idle-time indicators but upheld the retention finding. The chapter's lesson is that scanner data can be lawful as a narrow quality check and unlawful as a store of everything.What does the chapter mean when it says M1 Direction becomes M5 Care when the system sets the pace?
Show the answer
A. When a parameter sets the pace, nobody sees the person unless the system is designed to show them, so the duty of care is exercised over the parameter
The chapter's answer to Q11 for paced work begins with treating the target as a safety-relevant setting owned by a named person and assessed with the safety representative.