CONDUCT OF WORK THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

Week of 5/6/2019

MONDAY (use 5/6)

This week the Conduct of Work Thought for the Day will focus on actions we can
take to minimize errors made by teams. The actions will be relevant to all teams
whether the task involves performing fieldwork or a new design change.
Events driven by latent organizational weaknesses (errors buried in guidance
documents such as programs, processes, procedures, work orders, design
changes and such) culminated with the issuance of INPO (Institute of Nuclear
Power Operators) document 05-002 in 2005 “Human Performance Tools for
Engineers and Knowledge Workers”. The industry coined the term knowledge
worker to acknowledge that fieldwork is mostly skill and rule based where other
support activities could be primarily knowledge based. It was determined that the
existing HPI tools used by those performing fieldwork could, with minor
clarifications, be used by knowledge workers. Because of the work environment,
these activities also lend themselves to being more vulnerable to a specific set of
error precursors so the industry also developed some new tools. DOE adopted
these tools into DOE-HDBK-1028-2009 “Human Performance Tools for Individuals,
Work Teams and Management”. DOE recognized in this Handbook that these
tools were not just for engineers and knowledge workers. Any work team could
benefit from their use. The rest of this week we will discuss some of these tools,
when to use them and at risk practices to avoid.

TUESDAY (use 5/7)

One of the most powerful tools in our toolbox for teams is the pre-job brief. The
singular activity that can get teams on the same page by understanding each
member’s role and responsibilities. It can help guard against scope creep and
working outside controls by discussing scope and actions, we will take if we
encounter unanticipated conditions. We discuss error precursors and non-
eliminated hazards specific to the task and the specific method/tools to we will
use to mitigate them. Finally, it helps us get our head in the game by shedding
 CONDUCT OF WORK THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

Week of 5/6/2019
distractors, personal and work related. The primary difference between a field
Pre-job brief and a “technical” aka knowledge worker pre-job brief is that for the
technical activity hazard control and mitigation is less critical and more emphasis
placed on understanding deliverables, critical aspects of the activity where
application of HPI tools such as peer checks or independent verification are
appropriate. Agreement on roles based on qualifications and experience,
responsibilities amongst team members are important to discuss. Finally, because
technical activities can span days, weeks or months it is important to re-brief at
key times. Re-perform the pre-job brief after a lengthy break in the project,
changing conditions such as deliverables or requirements, or
addition/replacement of team members or a significant absence by a team
member. When the task changes phases such as a transition from the conceptual
to the detailed design phase the scope is different and roles/responsibilities may
change. Conduct a new pre-job brief in these situations. Tomorrow we will
conclude the PJB discussion with good practices relevant to both types of Pre-job
Briefs.

WEDNESDAY (use 5/8)

Since the pre-job brief is our go to HPI tool for teams, let’s discuss actions we can
take to make them the best they can be. Whether for a field activity or knowledge
worker pre-job brief these best practices will make the either type of brief more
effective. The one thing that can change a compliant pre-job brief into an
excellent briefing is the preparation of the supervisor AND the participants. Both
parties should review relevant documents, procedures, etc. before the brief. If the
brief is for a field activity the cognizant supervisor and participants walk the work
area down to look for changes that can affect the work or work documents. Not
to be confused with planning or workability walk downs this is a final just before
the job in case some environmental factor has changed (lighting, weather, clutter,
etc.). As the ad says the other thing that can change ordinary into extraordinary is
for the brief to be interactive. This requires pre-planning. The supervisor becomes
a facilitator and the team members take on roles leading the discussion for each
 CONDUCT OF WORK THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

Week of 5/6/2019
aspect of the brief. The team member assigned a particular topic area, say
hazards and their control engages his/her team members by asking questions and
spreading the wealth so everyone feels compelled to come to the brief prepared
and knowledgeable. Finally, a great addition to an excellent pre-job brief is a
discussion of a lesson learned or relevant OPEX. This does a couple of things.
First, it helps educate the team on how a good plan can go bad with real
examples. This helps the team think in terms of planning for success but
anticipating failures and thinking about the worst thing that could go wrong and
how to prevent or mitigate it(the S-A-F-E-R HPI tool is useful for this discussion).

THURSDAY (use 5/9)

We will wrap up this week’s discussion on team HPI by touching on a couple more
tools effective for team error reduction. Independent verification is most often
associated with LOTO’s or critical step completion in a procedure or work
document. It is that but has other applications for teams. I like the concept of
independent verification for work site clean up after a field activity. When the
team is completed have the area owner, typically operations go through and
independently verify the area’s housekeeping is excellent. For technical teams
independent verification is common for engineering products but applies to other
deliverables. If in knowledge based space have a team member perform the
critical task and see if the results are the same. This approach ensures that the
logic, reasoning and process used are solid. Another tool is using a peer review.
This tool relies on a peer team member equally or more experienced to check the
work of another team member. NASA proved in the 60’s that redundancy
increases probability of success by an order of magnitude. If a single component
had a 1:10 chance of failing, NASA reduced the probability of failure to 1:100 by
designing two components in parallel. Three in parallel 1:1000 and so on. Plan the
independent verification and peer review as part of the team’s activities. Discuss
roles and responsibilities relative to these error prevention tools during the pre-
job brief.
 CONDUCT OF WORK THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

Week of 5/6/2019
You can read more about team and individual error prevention tools in DOE-
HDBK-1028-2009 vol. 2 at the following link courtesy of W&FMP
http://prc.chprc.rl.gov/rapidweb/WFMP/index.cfm?PageNum=99