I like this idea. It reminds me of what used to happen in the early days of the ACC - WSMP programme. I'm referring to the difference between the controls that were supposedly (imagined to be) in place with regards to the hazards listed in the hazard (risk) register; compared to the actual controls (or complete absence of) that the auditor found. That was after ACC insisted that auditors verify that what was actually being done, matched what the documentation said was being done.

I remember encountering a fire engineering contractor who had provided a 'beautiful' safe system of work for replacing a sensor head. This written system of work included the use of an elevated work platform; the contractor, however, had come armed with a ladder.

It was a 5 minute job and the ladder was the perfect tool for the job. The contractor told me that "the paperwork couldn't mention a ladder, because ladders are banned on most sites".

I just got him to quickly amend the paperwork in pen, so it resembled what he was actually going to do and away he went. Problem was, the paperwork took longer than the job did!

This happens all too often. People/contractors write a plan then do the complete opposite. Usually the plan includes 'what the principle wants to hear, not what is actually going to occur'.

Having done a multitude of FRAM modelling workshops produces way too many differences between WAI and WAD. However, I have had a variety of reactions after FRAM modelling a task such as "I never knew my job was so complex", or (in jest) "I need to ask the boss for a pay rise".

I had a similar one but they decide to wait until a stock truck drove in and stood on that.