OCCUPATIONAL APPLICATIONSStandard operating procedures (SOPs) in complex industrial settings require a process for change management which can accommodate updates and adapt to changing tasks, roles, and tools. Interviews with users and administrators of SOPs in a large petrochemical company revealed contrasting perceptions of the procedural change process. Administrators (those who write or oversee the procedures, such as at the mid-level management level or "blunt end" of the process) perceived the change process as transparent, accessible, and encouraging for users of procedures at the sharp end, whereas users themselves perceived the process to be opaque and futile. Given the critical role of effective procedures in maintaining a safe workplace, these findings have important implications for ergonomics and human factors practitioners. Considerations for designing SOP change management should include accounting for process change transparency, emphasizing the importance of employee buy-in, and effectively communicating about procedures, policies, and safety in the change management.
Keywords: Standard operating procedure; change process; qualitative thematic analysis; safety culture; work-as-done; work-as-imagined.
Background Written standard operating procedures are utilized in complex work environments. However, given the frequent updates to tasks, roles, and tools in complex systems, procedures should not be treated as static, infallible tools, but instead should be living documents that require regular maintenance and updates.Purpose In this paper, we focus on the process for changing and updating procedures in a representative petrochemical industry and how this change process may contribute to a gap between work-as-imagined (WAI) and work-as-done (WAD) as well as possible relations with safety climate.Methods Qualitative analysis of interviews with 39 employees from a high-risk petrochemical producer revealed a stark divide in the opinions of the procedure change process for those who utilize procedures in the course of their work (i.e., WAD) and those who develop or administrate the use of procedures (i.e., WAI).Results For procedure users the change process was a black box, and many users indicated they had not spoken out when they believed a procedure needed correction. In contrast, procedure administrators considered the change process to be straightforward and one that could be easily initiated by users.Conclusions Contrasting perceptions at sharp and blunt ends of the system reveal a need to emphasize the importance of employee buy-in and communication about safety for better operational and mental model alignment.