SafetyInsights.org

This brief conference paper explored the application of a novel coding framework for describing and categorising the differences between work-as-imagined (WAI) versus work-as-done (WAD).

This study describes one element of a larger study exploring gaps between WAI and WAD in procedures. In this study, a worker wore a helmet-mounted camera during a task of loading a chemical product to a rail car. The individual steps the worker performed were then categorised against the SOP.

It’s not a detailed breakdown of WAI/WAD (you’ll need to refer to other studies for that), but I think as a brief read it’s an interesting study.

The image below has the methodology employed. Namely it evaluates three coding attributes: (p.624)

• Skip: if the step was skipped or performed
• Order: If the step was performed in the order specified by the procedure
• Action: If the step was performed as prescribed by the procedure

Results

In procedure 1, 52.6% of steps and 20.5% in procedure 2 had a difference between WAI & WAD. Attribute “order” was found to contribute more towards the difference between WAI & WAD (31.6%). In procedure 2, “skip” was the major contributor to the difference. In both procedures, “action” was found to contribute the least to the difference between WAI & WAD.

The below image highlights some of the data:

Note that these findings are specific to that task, worker and environment – so the specific differences are probably of less relevance to cover in detail.

It’s said that while the worker was managing the filling of the railcar activity, “it is reasonable to assume that modifications to the steps were made to achieve efficiency while being within the safe boundaries of operation”.

Further, “These results demonstrate that the worker adjusted his actions to match their working conditions” (p626).

The authors argue that the task being completed despite the difference between WAI & WAD contrasts with the view that “strict adherence to SOPs is required to control worker behavior in complex work environments to maintain safety” (p626).

This type of categorisation framework was said to allow another level of granularity on the types of adaptations that occur when people interpret and operationalise procedures.

The importance here is said to be that “As socio-technical systems are getting more complex, current safety management systems that focus on predicting needed interactions and controlling workers’ behaviors through the use of SOPs are likely to be insufficient” (p626).

Embracing adaptive principles that view variability as one type of asset rather than necessarily as a strict liability may help overcome some argued limitations of safety management approaches, in conjunction with existing approaches.

Authors: Atif Mohammed Ashraf, Changwon Son, S Camille Peres, and Farzan Sasangohar, Proceedings of the 2021 HFES 65th International Annual Meeting

Study link: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1071181321651210

Link to the LinkedIn article: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/navigating-operating-procedures-everyday-work-wai-wad-ben-hutchinson