Successful adoption of safety technology
Expert advice for navigating your journey

Change is difficult. So, it’s no surprise that adopting a new safety technology in the workplace – or making a technological change – can be challenging.
What do employers and safety professionals need to take into account as they navigate this process? Safety+Health asked two experts for advice:

Kate Crawford
Senior research manager for workplace safety programs,
National Safety Council

Cam Stevens
CEO, Pocketknife Group, and Founder,
Safety Innovation Academy
Here’s what they shared.
What do organizations need to consider before taking the leap on a new safety technology or making a change to their current safety technology?
Stevens: Too often, organizations adopt technology to appear innovative without first determining whether it addresses an existing or emerging health and safety risk.
Success starts with a deep understanding of the problem and the needs of the workforce, achieved through inclusive and diverse engagement. This might involve human-centered design principles, such as developing personas and conducting empathy interviews, to ensure that any solution aligns with the lived experiences of those who will use it.
A readiness assessment is equally important. Organizations need to evaluate their maturity, leadership capacity and technical infrastructure for change. Are they agile and forward-thinking, or reactive? Is there a vision for how technology fits into their future? These foundational steps create the conditions for meaningful and sustainable adoption.
Crawford: NSC’s Work to Zero initiative stresses the importance of “digital readiness” when working with organizations that are looking to implement safety technology solutions in the workplace. When readying your organization for technology adoption, it’s critical to consider the reasons behind the decision to adopt a specific technology, how it can be implemented in your particular workplace and how it will affect those in your organization.
Organizations should:
- Articulate why the new technology is needed and how it aligns with the business value.
- Assess how the technology will interact with and affect users and stakeholders.
- Identify what supporting elements are needed for implementation (for example: information technology infrastructure or process changes).
- Clarify expectations and anticipate errors.
During the earliest phase of innovation – when organizations are exploring what and how technology may be used at their workplace – it’s critical to collect feedback from affected groups. These include decision-makers, support systems and end-users. They’ll be able to provide insight into available and needed resources and provide information about the risks you’re looking to address. This will also provide insight into the mindset and readiness of your workforce. Are employees interested and curious about technology or are they fearful or untrusting?
The Work to Zero initiative also emphasizes the need to look at three areas when considering innovation: mindset, skill set and tool set.
Mindset refers to the human-centered vision toward innovation, how the technology is aligned with your organization’s values and how it can be used to protect your people.
Skill set refers to the key competencies needed to be successful; this includes IT support skills and the ability to identify relevant technologies.
Tool set refers to structural requirements such as data capture, storage and processing capabilities.
What questions should organizations ask or what do they need to research before making a change?
Stevens: Key questions include:
- What challenge or risk are we trying to solve?
- How does the proposed technology integrate into our existing systems and workflows?
- Do we have the digital infrastructure and skills to support this technology?
- What are the expected costs, including ongoing maintenance and training?
- How will we measure success, and how will this technology improve outcomes?
- Do we have a culture of care founded on trust?
Organizations should also explore the track record of the technology and its provider, as well as how other organizations in similar contexts have implemented it. It’s critical to ask whether the organization is ready for the change – not just in technical terms but culturally and operationally.
What challenges or barriers should employers anticipate before seeking to bring in a new technology or make any other changes?
Crawford: In a lot of our past research, we’ve seen that some of the main barriers to adoption are the adaptability of technology to specific organizational needs, limited knowledge of what technology is available and resistant workforces. Purchase cost can also be challenging for some organizations.
Stevens: Resistance to change is the most common barrier, often stemming from a lack of trust in the organization. This distrust is exacerbated by concerns about privacy and surveillance, particularly with technologies such as computer vision (a subset of artificial intelligence). These fears are often amplified when technologies are marketed explicitly as surveillance tools or when external factors, such as negative media coverage of consumer technologies including facial recognition, raise public skepticism.
Additionally, organizations may underestimate the operational and cultural impact of introducing new technologies. One of the most significant challenges is managing the influx of data that these systems can generate. For instance, a traditional safety program may record a relatively small number of incidents or hazards, but a technology such as computer vision operates continuously, capturing a massive volume of data points around risks such as forklift and pedestrian interactions.
This can lead to two main issues:
Data overload: Organizations may not have the infrastructure, processes or skills to manage the sudden increase in data. Without clear protocols, this data can overwhelm existing systems, creating inefficiencies instead of driving improvement.
Action paralysis: If the influx of data reveals previously unknown risks or a higher-than-expected frequency of safety concerns, leaders may feel unprepared or disempowered to act. This can erode confidence in the technology and the organization’s ability to manage safety effectively.
Employers also need to anticipate that workforce acceptance of technology hinges on how it’s introduced. For example, framing computer vision as a tool for collective learning and improving safety outcomes, rather than a means to monitor individual behavior, can significantly influence how it’s perceived. Failure to address these nuances during the introduction phase can lead to skepticism and resistance, undermining the technology’s potential benefits.
How can employers overcome or alleviate those challenges or barriers?
Stevens: The foundation for overcoming resistance to new technology lies in early and transparent communication. Organizations should engage their workforce long before procurement, fostering open dialogue about the purpose and expected benefits of the technology being explored for potential adoption. This proactive approach can help alleviate fears and build trust. For example, positioning computer vision as a tool for collective safety learning, rather than individual surveillance, reframes the narrative and emphasizes shared benefits.
Involving workers directly in the process through pilots and testing scenarios is another effective strategy. Piloting the technology in controlled environments allows employees to see how it functions, provide feedback and gain confidence in its value. Workers who participate in these early stages can become advocates for the technology, helping to influence broader acceptance across the organization.
Leadership support is critical. Leaders must not only champion the change but also ensure that resources, timelines and goals are aligned with the organization’s broader strategy. Leadership visibility and commitment signal to employees that the change is serious and well-supported, fostering a sense of security and confidence in the process.
Implementation should always be strategic. Organizations must plan for scalability from the outset, rather than rushing into adoption. Starting small, through pilots or limited rollouts, is wise, but only if there is a clear roadmap for how the technology will be scaled and integrated into daily operations. Without a vision for scale, successful pilot programs can be damaging to technology adoption more broadly.
Finally, ongoing training and education are essential to ensuring employees feel empowered to use the technology effectively. Training shouldn’t be a one-time event, but a continuous process tailored to the evolving needs of the workforce. When combined with phased implementation and clear strategies for scale, this approach can ease the transition and create a culture that embraces technological change as a path to improving safety and efficiency.
Are there ways organizations can gauge how well a technological change is working for them?
Crawford: It’s important to enact continuous improvement and monitoring to understand how successful technology implementation is. It will need to be specific to your own organization. Many sites identify key metrics they’re trying to address with innovating in the first place.
For example, if trying to address a specific hazard, organizations may compare data on injuries, near misses and first aid. Some may focus on hours of exposure. It’s also important to continue to gather feedback from those affected by the technology (including workers, IT support and supervisors) via surveys, formal or informal discussions, focus groups, or other communication channels. Performing a cost-benefit analysis may also be helpful in understanding the return on investment for the technology and the total cost of ownership for the organization.
Stevens: Measuring the success of a technological change begins with understanding the specific problem the technology is intended to solve. Although traditional metrics such as injury or incident reduction remain important, they’re often lagging indicators that don’t fully capture the broader impact of the change. Organizations should focus on metrics that provide a more comprehensive picture, such as engagement and tangible outcomes in work design or risk exposure.
Engagement metrics are particularly valuable because they reflect how well the technology is being adopted and integrated into daily workflows. These metrics could include sustained usage rates, indicating whether the workforce continues to use the technology over time or if there’s a drop-off after initial implementation. High engagement levels often correlate with the technology meeting user needs and providing tangible benefits.
The real test of success, however, lies in whether the technology drives meaningful changes in work design or risk management. For example, has it reduced exposure hours to a specific hazard? Has it made tasks more efficient, safer or less physically demanding? Has the organization’s risk profile shifted in a measurable way, such as by decreasing the likelihood or consequence of incidents? These are leading indicators that reflect the technology’s effectiveness in mitigating risks and improving workplace conditions.
Additionally, organizations should assess whether the technology enables positive design changes. For instance, has it prompted a rethinking of workflows, layouts or processes that contribute to safer and more efficient operations? This could involve redesigning workspaces to separate people and plant interactions or leveraging real-time data insights to proactively address hazards before they escalate.
It’s also essential to ensure the influx of new data generated by the technology leads to actionable insights rather than creating information overload. Leaders must evaluate whether the organization is effectively using the data to inform decision-making and drive improvements. The ability to transform data into meaningful actions is a critical success metric.
Ultimately, success isn’t just about adoption, it’s about impact. If the technology reduces exposure to risks, fosters better engagement, and supports a shift in safety culture or organizational behavior, it can be considered successful. By aligning metrics with the original challenge and prioritizing outcomes over outputs, organizations can ensure that their investment in technology delivers measurable value.
Post a comment to this article
Safety+Health welcomes comments that promote respectful dialogue. Please stay on topic. Comments that contain personal attacks, profanity or abusive language – or those aggressively promoting products or services – will be removed. We reserve the right to determine which comments violate our comment policy. (Anonymous comments are welcome; merely skip the “name” field in the comment box. An email address is required but will not be included with your comment.)