Abstract
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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
