Objective The objective of these studies was to identify hazard statement (HS) design elements in procedures that affected whether both workers and lab participants performed the associated hazard mitigation. Background Many of the incidents in high-risk industries are the result of issues with procedures (e.g., standard operating procedures; SOPs) workers use to support their performance. HSs in these procedures are meant to communicate potential work hazards and methods of mitigating those hazards. However, there is little empirical research regarding whether current hazard design guidelines for consumer products translate to procedures. Method Two experimental studies—(1) a laboratory study and (2) a high-fidelity simulation—manipulated the HS design elements present in procedures participants used while performing tasks. Participants’ adherence to the mitigation of the hazard was compared for the HS designs. Results The guidelines for HSs from consumer products did not translate to procedures. Specifically, the presence of an alert icon, a box around the statement, and highlighting the statement did not improve adherence to HSs. Indeed, the only consistent finding was for the Icon, with its presence reliably predicting nonadherence in both studies. Additionally, the total number of design elements did not have a positive effect on adherence. Conclusion These findings indicate that more fundamental procedure HSs research is needed to identify effective designs as well as to understand the potential attentional mechanisms associated with these findings. Application The findings from these studies indicate that current regulations and guidelines should be revisited regarding hazard presentation in procedures.
The differences between ‘work as imagined’ (WAI) and ‘work as done’ (WAD) reflect theoretically pervasive and well-known barriers to the examination of human performance at work. Due to the dynamic and situational nature of work, the idealized performance reflected in procedures is not always done as prescribed. The identification and examination of this gap and the nature of these deviations are imperative for high-risk industries. The present study used conventional content analysis to compare stakeholders’ performance expectations to the realities of operator performance through interviews collected at a high-risk petrochemical producer. Direct comparisons of stakeholder and operator perspectives revealed divergent expectations of how procedures are used, when they’re most useful, and reasons why operators don’t utilize the procedure amendment process. These differences could be resolved through increased collaboration between stakeholders and operators. Future research should consider collaboration interventions to bridge the gap between WAI and WAD.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.