Taylorist production and management concepts perceive the work as a mechanical and static process, suggesting that flawless procedures can prevent human error or deviations. This view overlooks human factors, creating a gap between Work-as-Imagined (WAI) and Work-as-Done (WAD).
Modern workplaces contrast sharply with the Taylorist view, highlighting the need to focus on Work-as-Done rather than Work-as-Imagined. This approach values practical, adaptable systems over idealized ones, acknowledging that reliability stems from flexibility rather than perfect design.
Applied to EHS, this means it's not just about enforcing work as imagined, but rather understanding why tasks are performed in specific ways and how safety teams can mitigate the risks that arise from these practices.
This shift in perspective views employees as humans - as it should be -, not liabilities, and treats performance variability as a crucial component of system functionality. But of course, variability can lead to both successes and failures. Simply reducing variability cannot prevent failures, nor can imposing rigid constraints on standard operations ensure safety.
Emerging concepts, like Safety Differently, Safety II, and Human Organizational Performance (HOP) argue that strict adherence to procedures is unrealistic and lacks necessary flexibility for operational needs.
Defining the gap: WAI vs WAD
The work set in detailed procedures is often described as Work-as-Imagined. In practice, however, work is carried out as work-as-done, or WAD. What is commonly agreed upon in the literature is that there is a disconnect between WAI and WAD. This discrepancy creates a gap between established procedures and competing work priorities.
In the book Doing Safety Differently, the authors, Dekker and Conklin, explore this gap between what we expect to happen on the job and what actually occurs in reality. When planning a task, we often have a specific idea of how it should be done, without considering all potential risks.
Given the ever-changing dynamic nature of the workplace, employees are obliged to improvise new ways while executing tasks. In many cases, it works out fine and the task is completed safely. However, also on many occasions, it can lead to high-risk unsafe acts and conditions.
How much does this gap influence the outcome?
A study analyzed 524 procedural steps to complete tasks in a high-risk industry. The key findings were:
• 66% of steps were performed as prescribed by procedures.
• 34% of steps showed discrepancies between Work-as-Done (WAD) and Work-as-Imagined (WAI), such as:
- Completing steps in a different order.
- Partially completing safety-critical steps.
- Missing steps entirely.
Given the pivotal importance, how can we measure the gap in a reliable way, or can we?
With the developments in computer vision AI in recent years, a novel way begins to emerge to measure and quantify the gap, providing previously unknown insights around WAI vs WAD.
By integrating AI into the existing cameras within facilities, organizations can analyze workplaces 24/7 and generate real-time leading safety indicators and data-driven insights to show the scale of the gap.
How best to close the identified gap?
The literature recommends a few strategies:
• By involving frontline teams in the planning process
• Adopting a just culture
• Using risk assessment tools
By using these strategies, we can better understand and address the safety risks involved in a task. What Intenseye can analyze is extremely powerful and could prevent workplace injuries by closing the gap with the help of real-time leading safety indicators.
Intenseye's AI ensures that data is handled responsibly and without bias, aligning with the highest privacy and security standards. By seamlessly integrating a human-centric approach, we empower our customers to deploy AI in ways that prioritize both safety compliance and employee well-being.
Rather than attributing challenges to employees, we address gaps in safety compliance through systemic improvements, creating safer and more inclusive workplaces. Early involvement of employees encourages trust and ensures that AI-generated leading safety indicators contribute to a psychologically safe work culture, where employees feel confident to voice their concerns and collaborate on meaningful resolutions.
Intenseye’s AI-powered EHS management software in action
Here’s a fascinating example of how AI can help close the gap between WAI and WAD. One of our customers has a metal shearing area, and no one is allowed within the footprint of the machine while it is operational. There is a control panel within the predefined safe area that is accessed while the shearing machinery is operating.
The management is aware of this issue and has the plan to move the control panel. However, what they did not know is that over 300 times a month, employees are putting themselves at risk to meet the job requirements.
With Intenseye’s AI-powered safety management software, the company is now aware of the safety risks in real-time, like how often and how severe they are, all in one place.
This makes it easier for EHS teams to focus on the most critical areas and improve workplace safety faster.
Another issue is the fact that manual reporting processes are grossly underreporting events due to a flow of disjointed data. What Intenseye does is, provide the true number of at-risk behaviors, real frequency of deviation and real-time leading safety indicators.
By providing the frequency of safety incidents, we are able to help the highest risk become prioritized and the most critical gap between work as done and work as planned gets closed.
Beyond WAI vs WAD: Any other gap that we can close?
We have observed that Intenseye’s real-time leading safety indicators fosters an organic constructive dialogue between decision-makers and the frontline staff in order to collectively address the issues at the holistic level. This way, Intenseye contributes to closing the gap between the sharp end and the blunt end, culminating in a transparent work culture and better-engaged workforce.
In one of our clients’ EHS directors’ words: “Intenseye is the voice of the frontline.”
Resources
S. Dekker, T. Conklin. Do Safety Differently
E. Hollnagel, Can we ever imagine how work is done?
D.L. Phipps, D. Parker, E.J.M. Pals, G.H. Meakin, C. Nsoedo, P.C.W. Beatty, Identifying violation-provoking conditions in a healthcare setting. Ergonomics
Ashraf, A. M., Peres, S. C., & Sasangohar, F, Investigating a new classification to describe the differences between Work-As-Imagined and Work-As-DoneIn Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
S. Dekker, J. Bergström, I. Amer-Wåhlin, et al. Complicated, complex, and compliant: best practice in obstetrics. Cognit. Technol. Work, 15 (2013), pp. 189-195, 10.1007/s10111-011-0211-6
R. Lawton. Not working to rule: understanding procedural violations at work. Saf. Sci., 28 (1998), pp. 77-95, 10.1016/S0925-7535(97)00073-8
Denham L. Phipps,Dianne Parker,Elisah J.M. Pals,George H. Meakin ,Chidozie Nsoedo & Paul C.W. Beatty, Identifying violation provoking factors in a healthcare setting
