This study proposes a novel coding framework to quantify and categorize the differences between Work-As-Imagined (WAI) and Work-As-Done (WAD) based on the Safety-II perspective. While the Safety-I approach focuses on controlling deviations from Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) as the solution to prevent incidents, this framework aims to describe and code workers’ adaptive behavior while executing their tasks. The proposed framework checks three attributes for each step; “Skip,” “Order,” and “Action” to help decide if WAI aligns with WAD. The framework was tested by applying it to an actual work environment in a petrochemical facility. Initial findings successfully demonstrated the ability of the framework to describe the differences between WAI and WAD.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AshourA.AshcroftD. M.PhippsD. L. (2021). Mind the gap: Examining work-as-imagined and work-as-done when dispensing medication in the community pharmacy setting. Applied Ergonomics, 93, 103372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103372
BullemerP. T.KiffL.TharanathanA. (2011). Common procedural execution failure modes during abnormal situations. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 814–818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2011.06.007
4.
CarvalhoP. V. R.BenchekrounT.-H.GomesJ. O. (2010). Analysis of information exchange activities to actualize and validate situation awareness during shift changeovers in nuclear power plants. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 22(2), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20201
5.
CarvalhoP. V. R.RighiA. W.HuberG. J.LemosC. F.JatobaA.GomesJ. O. (2018). Reflections on work as done (WAD) and work as imagined (WAI) in an emergency response organization: A study on firefighters training exercises. Applied Ergonomics, 68, 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.10.016
6.
Center for Chemical Process Safety. (2007). Guidelines for risk based process safety (1st ed.). Wiley-AIChE.
7.
DekkerS. (2003). Failure to adapt or adaptations that fail: contrasting models on procedures and safety. Applied Ergonomics, 34(3), 233–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-6870(03)00031-0
8.
DekkerS. (2005). Ten questions about human error: A new view of human factors and system safety. Taylor & Francis Group.
9.
ELAN (Version 6). (2020). [Computer software]. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. https://archive.mpi.nl/tla/elan
HendricksJ. W.PeresS. C. (2021). Beyond human error: An empirical study of the safety Model 1 and Model 2 approaches for predicting workers’ behaviors and outcomes with procedures. Safety Science, 134, 105016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.105016
12.
HollnagelE. (2012). FRAM: The functional resonance analysis method: Modelling complex socio-technical systems (1st ed.). CRC Press.
HollnagelE. (2014b). Safety-I and Safety-II: The past and future of safety management (1st ed.). CRC Press.
15.
HollnagelE. (2018). The ETTO principle: Efficiency-Thoroughness Trade-Off: Why things that go right sometimes go wrong (1st ed.). CRC Press.
16.
LevesonN.DulacN.MaraisK.CarrollJ. (2009). Moving beyond normal accidents and high reliability organizations: A systems approach to safety in complex systems. Organization Studies, 30(2–3), 227–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840608101478
ProvanD. J.WoodsD. D.DekkerS. W. A.RaeA. J. (2020). Safety II professionals: How resilience engineering can transform safety practice. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 195, 106740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2019.106740
SasangoharF.PeresS. C.WilliamsJ. P.SmithA.MannanM. S. (2018). Investigating written procedures in process safety: Qualitative data analysis of interviews from high risk facilities. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 113, 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.09.010
SonC.PeresS. C.SasangoharF. (2020, December). Developing a novel operator performance measure for procedural tasks based on Safety-II perspective. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 1755–1759. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181320641425
23.
TeperiA.-M.LeppänenA.NorrosL. (2015). Application of new human factors tool in an air traffic management organization. Safety Science, 73, 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2014.11.005
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. (2010, April). Investigation report Vol. 3: Drilling rig explosion and fire at the Macondo well (Report No. 2010-10-I-OS). https://www.csb.gov/file.aspx?DocumentId=5992
