Proposal for an Evaluation Method for the Performance of Work Procedures

  • Mohammed, Mouda (LRPI-Laboratory, Health and Safety Institute, University of Batna 2) ;
  • Mebarek, Djebabra (LRPI-Laboratory, Health and Safety Institute, University of Batna 2) ;
  • Wafa, Boulagouas (LRPI-Laboratory, Health and Safety Institute, University of Batna 2) ;
  • Makhlouf, Chati (HSE Department of Regional Direction of Hassi R'mel, Group of Sonatrach)
  • Received : 2015.11.15
  • Accepted : 2016.04.28
  • Published : 2016.12.30


Background: Noncompliance of operators with work procedures is a recurrent problem. This human behavior has been said to be situational and studied by many different approaches (ergonomic and others), which consider the noncompliance with work procedures to be obvious and seek to analyze its causes as well as consequences. Methods: The object of the proposed method is to solve this problem by focusing on the performance of work procedures and ensuring improved performance on a continuous basis. Results: This study has multiple results: (1) assessment of the work procedures' performance by a multicriteria approach; (2) the use of a continuous improvement approach as a framework for the sustainability of the assessment method of work procedures' performance; and (3) adaptation of the Stop-Card as a facilitator support for continuous improvement of work procedures. Conclusion: The proposed method emphasizes to put in value the inputs of continuous improvement of the work procedures in relation with the conventional approaches which adopt the obvious evidence of the noncompliance to the working procedures and seek to analyze the cause-effect relationships related to this unacceptable phenomenon, especially in strategic industry.


  1. Hale AR, Swuste P. Safety rules: procedural freedom or action constraint? Saf Sci 1998;29:163-77.
  2. Leplat J. About implementation of safety rules. Saf Sci 1998;29:189-204.
  3. Mouda M, Djebabra M. A dynamic model proposal for the analysis of work procedures. J Fail Anal Prev 2015;15:152-60.
  4. Weichbrodt J. Safety rules as instruments for organizational control, coordination and knowledge: implications for rules management. Saf Sci 2015;80:221-32.
  5. Vidal-Gomel C. Le developpement des competences pour la gestion des risquesprofessionnels. Le domaine de la maintenance des systemes electriques. PhD thesis, University of Paris-VIII. Saint-Denis (France); 2001 [in French].
  6. Loo R. Policies and procedures in the workplace: how health care organizations compare. Healthc Manage Forum 1993;6:39-43.
  7. Boughaba A, Chabane H, Ouddai R. Safety culture assessment in petrochemical industry: a comparative study of two Algerian plants. Saf Health Work 2014;5:60-5.
  8. Seymour A, Dupre KE. Une intervention organisationnelle visant a ameliorer la sante des employes. Healthc Manage Forum 2007;20:14-7 [in French].
  9. Rhee K-Y, Kim Y-S, Cho Y-H. The type of payment and working conditions. Saf Health Work 2015;6:289-94.
  10. Amiard V, Libert J-P. Travail poste : quel(s) critere(s) de penibilite. Arch Mal Prof Environ 2015;76:292-301 [in French].
  11. Battmann W, Klumb P. Behavioural economics and compliance with safety regulations. Saf Sci 1993;16:35-46.
  12. Nordlof H, Wiitavaara B, Winblad U, Wijk K, Westerling R. Safety culture and reasons for risk-taking at a large steel-manufacturing company: investigating the worker perspective. Saf Sci 2015;73:126-35.
  13. Reason J, Parker D, Lawton R. Organizational controls and safety: the varieties of rule related behavior. J Occup Org Psychol 1998;71:289-304.
  14. Kohonen T. Self-organizing maps. 3rd ed. New York (NY): Springer; 2001.
  15. Analoui F. Strategic human resource management. London (UK): Thomson; 2007.
  16. Lievens F, Peeters H, Schollaert E. Situational judgment tests: a review of recent research. Pers Rev 2008;37:426-41.
  17. Heyde A, Brandhorst S, Kluge A. The impact of safety audit timing and framing of the production outcomes on safety-related rule violations in a simulated production environment. Saf Sci 2015;77:205-13.
  18. Lawton R. Not working to rule: Understanding procedural violations at work. Saf Sci 1998;28:77-95.
  19. Melissa K-L, Stavroula L, Aditya J. Psychosocial risks: is risk management strategic enough in business and policy making? Saf Health Work 2013;4: 87-94.
  20. Tarciscio S, Ferreira C. The impacts of lean production on working conditions: a case study of a harvester assembly line in Brazil. Int J Ind Ergon 2009;39:403-12.
  21. Hale A, Borys D, Adams M. Safety regulation: the lessons of workplace safety rule management formanaging the regulatory burden. Saf Sci 2013;71:112-22.
  22. Denance V, Somat A. Learning by explaining: Impacts of explanations on the development of a competence. Eur Rev Appl Psychol 2015;65:307-15.
  23. Mouda M, Djebabra M, Chati M. Contribution of risk perception for the analysis of non-compliance to work procedures. Health 2014;6:2705-11.
  24. Bergenhenegouwen GJ. Competence developmentda challenge for HRM professionals: core competences of organizations as guidelines for the development of employees. J Eur Ind Train 1996;20:29-35.
  25. Djebabra M, Mouda M, Bellaala D. The contribution of the BQA method to the analysis of the work procedures violation. J Manage Dev 2015;34:704-14.
  26. Byrd H. A comparison of three well known behavior based safety programs: DuPont STOP program, safety performance solutions and behavioral science technology. Thesis, Rochester Institute of Technology [Internet]. 2007 [cited 2016 Jan]. Available from:
  27. Karish J. Starting to get $STOP^{TM}$ Right, IADC Drilling HSE Asia Pacific Conference & Exhibition; 2011 Mar 23-24; Marina Bay Sands, Singapore [Internet]. [cited 2016 Jan]. Available from:
  28. Otsuka Y, Misawa R, Noguchi H, Yamaguchi H. A consideration for using workers' heuristics to improve safety rules based on relationships between creative mental sets and rule-violating actions. Saf Sci 2010;48:878-84.
  29. Hale A, Glendon AI. Individual behavior in the control of danger. Amsterdam (Netherlands): Elsevier; 1987.
  30. Lancry-Hoestlandt A, Laville A. Le travail in Les dimensions humaines du travail: theories et pratiques de la psychologie du travail et des organisations [Internet]. Sous la direction de Brangier E., Lancry A. et Louche C. 2004. . [cited 2016 Jan]. Available from: [in French].
  31. Borman WC, Motowidlo SJ. Task performance and contextual performance: the meaning for personnel selection research. Hum Perform 1997;10:99-109.
  32. Hogan T-P. Psychological testing: a practical introduction. 2nd ed. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley; 2007.
  33. Steiner D-D, Touze P-A. L'evaluation des individus dans le contexte organisationnel. In Les dimensions humaines du travail: theories et pratiques de la psychologie du travail et des organisations [Internet]. Sous la direction de Brangier E., Lancry A. et Louche C. 2004. France: Presses universitaires de Nancy; 2004. [in French].
  34. Tahon C. Evaluation des performances des systemes de production. Serie Productique. Lavoisier Paris (France): Hermes; 2003 [in French].
  35. Spring M, Araujo L. Indirect capabilities and complex performance: implications for procurement and operations strategy. Int J Oper Prod Manage 2014;34:150-73.
  36. Srimai S, Radford J, Wright C. Evolutionary paths of performance measurement: an overview of its recent development. Int J Prod Perform Manage 2011;60:662-87.
  37. Pollanen R-M. Performance measurement in municipalities: empirical evidence in Canadian context. Int J Public Sector Manage 2005;18:4-24.
  38. Van Peursem KA, Prat MJ, Lawrence SR. Health management performance: a review of measures and indicators. Account Audit Account J 1995;8:34-70.
  39. Robson LS, Clarke JA, Cullen K, Bielecky A, Severin C, Bigelow PL, Irvin E, Culyer A, Mahood Q. The effectiveness of occupational health and safety management system interventions: a systematic review. Saf Sci 2007;45:329-53.
  40. Fuller C. Benchmarking health and safety performance through company safety competitions. Benchmark Int J 1999;6:325-37.
  41. Holland CP, Light B, Gibson N. A critical success factors model for enterprise resource planning implementation. Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Information Systems, 1999. p. 1, 273-97.
  42. Cambon J. Vers une nouvelle methodologie de mesure de la performance des systemes de management de la S&ST. PhD thesis presented at Ecole des Mines de Paris-France; 2007 [in French].
  43. Juglaret G. Indicateurs et tableaux de bord pour la prevention des risques en sante-securite au travail. Business administration. Ecole Nationale Superieure des Mines de Paris, 2012. , [in French].
  44. Coulibaly A, Houssine R, Mutel B. Maintainability and safety indicators at design stage for mechanical products. Comput Ind 2008;59:438-49.
  45. Bergh LIV, Hinna S, Leka S, Jain A. Developing a performance indicator for psychosocial risk in the oil and gas industry. Saf Sci 2014;62:98-106.
  46. Dahl O. Safety compliance in a highly regulated environment: a case study of workers' knowledge of rules and procedures within the petroleum industry. Saf Sci 2013;60:185-95.
  47. The International Labour Organization (ILO). La securite et l'hygiene du travail dans l'industrie petroliere a la lumiere de l'evolution des techniques. Technical report of the Oil Commission of ILO, Geneva (Switzerland):ILO; 1973. p. 35-46. [in French].
  48. National Expert at the Service of Environmental Safety (Institut National de l'EnviRonnement Industriel et des rsiqueS). Les enseignements de l'accidentologie liee a l'exploration et l'exploitation des hydrocarbures. Technical report of the INRIS DRS-15-149641-02735A, France [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2016 Jan]. Available from: [in French].