Skip to Content

Safety Program and Procedure Development

A procedure nobody uses is not a control. I develop safety programs, standard operating procedures, hazard identification processes and risk assessment methods that comply with the regulations and standards that apply to you, and that the people doing the work will actually follow.

Why procedures fail

Most procedures fail for one of two reasons. Either they were written to satisfy an auditor rather than to guide the work, or they describe a job as management imagines it rather than as it is performed. In both cases the workaround becomes the real procedure, and the document becomes evidence of a process that is not happening.

The fix is not more documentation. It is documentation built from the work itself, which means starting from what people actually do. See Bridging the Gap: A Practical Guide to Competence and Compliance.

Standard operating procedures that get used

An effective SOP is a comprehensive framework rather than a list of steps. It identifies the task and who performs it, names an owner responsible for keeping it current, cites the regulations and standards that govern it, states the hazards and the associated risk, specifies the tooling and PPE required, sets the policy, lays out the procedure itself, and defines both the training required and how competence will be verified.

It also has to be a living document with scheduled reviews, because an SOP is only as good as its last review. The full ten-component breakdown is in The Anatomy of an SOP.

Hazard identification that finds things

Hazard identification works at three levels at once: the operational reality where the person meets the equipment, the tactical bridge where management turns floor data into resources and revised procedures, and strategic oversight that watches the health of the whole system. If one level fails, what remains is paper safety.

Program design also has to account for who is doing the looking. A worker who has performed a task thousands of times develops expert blindness and stops seeing the frayed cord or the missing guard. Building inspection responsibilities around that fact, rather than ignoring it, is covered in The Fresh Eyes Advantage.

Risk assessment you can defend

Risk assessments are only as reliable as the process behind them. Traditional approaches lean on individual judgement, so results vary between assessors and even between two assessments by the same person. When a risk score cannot be repeated or defended, it fails the people it is meant to protect and exposes the organization.

The method I build separates exposure frequency from control effectiveness rather than blending them into a single guess, and assesses controls through a defined set of questions rather than a committee's impression. The reasoning is in The Illusion of Likelihood, and the approach is also available as a tool in ObjectiveRisk.

What a program package includes

  • A granular task inventory built with the people who perform the work and verified by observation.
  • Hazards, required tooling and PPE, and training needs defined per task.
  • Standard operating procedures written to be usable at the workstation, with a review cycle built in.
  • A hazard identification and reporting process, including how reports get closed out.
  • A risk assessment method with defined criteria, so scores are repeatable between assessors.

Frequently asked questions

Can you work from procedures we already have?

Usually, yes. Rewriting a functioning procedure wastes effort. The more common finding is that existing documents are sound in substance but missing the parts that make them usable and auditable, such as identified hazards, a named owner, specific references or a competence verification method.

What makes a procedure usable rather than just compliant?

It reflects how the work is actually performed, it is written for the person doing the job rather than for an auditor, and the safe way of working is also the easiest way. Where the safe method is physically punishing or logistically awkward, people will find a workaround regardless of what the document says.

How do you make risk assessments consistent between assessors?

By separating exposure frequency from control effectiveness and assessing each against defined criteria instead of asking people how they feel about a control. Two assessors evaluating the same hazard under the same conditions should arrive at the same score. If they cannot, the method is the problem.

Do you train our people to maintain this themselves?

That is the intended outcome. The measure of the work is not how much you need me, but whether your own supervisors and managers can maintain the system, run the reviews and keep the procedures current after the engagement ends.

Start with a conversation

Every engagement begins with a needs assessment, and that starts with a conversation about what your operation actually does and what you already have in place. Get in touch and we can work out whether this is the right fit.