ABSTRACT
What do the ‘rogue traders’ at Société Générale and Barings Bank, and the explosions at the BP Texas City refinery and the Buncefield oil storage depot in Hertfordshire have in common? They were all either caused, or aggravated, by failure to follow procedures. Ensuring compliance with procedures and process is of great importance for all organisations – whether traditional ‘high-hazard’ or economic high-consequence. Much guidance has been written concerning noncompliance, ranging from explicit guidance (e.g. HSE, 1995) through to general guidance on ergonomics, procedure design, etc. and hence it could reasonably be assumed that the problemwould nowbe properly controlled.The reality is thatmany organisations fail to ensure compliance with those processes and procedures that they believe are critical to their organisation’s commercial or safety performance. This begs the question – why is it apparently obvious (albeit with hindsight) what should be done, but apparently so difficult to do it? This paper discusses how the issue can be manifest, and the challenge of iden-
tifying and implementing effective solutions. Whilst many solutions lie within the domain of ergonomics, selection of the appropriate approach requires an understanding of the goals that underpin the observed behaviour. The paper considers the nature of non-compliance, the importance of the concept of goals, and the idea of a contract between the individual and organisation. This leads to consideration of the manner in which non-compliant behaviours are manifest (rather than focussing
solely on the actual breach of process). The paper then considers what some of the solutions might look like, and approaches to proactive improvement. This is then discussed in the context of resilience, and the manner in which organisations can continue to move forward.
