Human Performance Management Best Practice 13 – Independent Verification
Recent industrial accidents remind us of the critical importance of proper equipment operation. While some operational errors result in immediate negative impacts, the consequence of other errors may be delayed for a time.[wcm_restrict plans=”41245, 25542, 25653″]
Latent errors are those mistakes that do not become manifest in an adverse impact at the time the error is made. Because latent errors can result in equipment damage, personal injury, or loss of life, actions should be taken to minimize/eliminate their occurrence. One latent error reduction technique is independent verification.
Application
Independent verification is a human error reduction tool used during those operations potentially having adverse consequences at some time after the initial system manipulation, equipment tagging, and/or document creation/alteration. Examples of these types of operations include:
- changing the position of equipment controller settings (auto/manual/off, etcetera)
- applying or removing removal of clearance/danger tags to equipment components
- updating procedures, prints, or schematics
In order for independent verification to be effectively applied, organizational leaders need to identify those discreet activities both specifically and characteristically for which this performance tool should be used. Note that performing an independent verification for all activates diminishes its importance and so care should be taken when formulating the specific lists. (See StrategyDriven Human Performance Management Warning Flag article – Peer Checking Everything)
Definition
Independent verification is performed by an individual qualified to perform the initial operation who checks the appropriateness of the initial operation separated by both space and time. The person performing the independent verification uses the same error reduction techniques as the initial performer such as self-checking. (See StrategyDriven Human Performance Management Best Practice – Self Checking)
Independent verification checks are commonly documented to reinforce and because of the importance of this function. Typically, the independent verifier will sign/initial next to the initial performer’s signature/initials in the associated procedure, work instruction, tagging record, document change log, and etcetera. Fully mature error reduction programs will provide an independent verifier signature/initial space next to those specific steps to be verified in associated documents.[/wcm_restrict][wcm_nonmember plans=”41245, 25542, 25653″]
Hi there! Gain access to this article with a StrategyDriven Insights Library – Total Access subscription or buy access to the article itself.
| Subscribe to the StrategyDriven Insights Library
Sign-up now for your StrategyDriven Insights Library – Total Access subscription for as low as $15 / month (paid annually). Not sure? Click here to learn more. |
Buy the Article
Don’t need a subscription? Buy access to Human Performance Management Best Practice 13 – Independent Verification for just $2! |
[/wcm_nonmember]
About the Author
Nathan Ives is a StrategyDriven Principal and Host of the StrategyDriven Podcast. For over twenty years, he has served as trusted advisor to executives and managers at dozens of Fortune 500 and smaller companies in the areas of management effectiveness, organizational development, and process improvement. To read Nathan’s complete biography, click here.
Projects and the organizations supporting them share a key characteristic; they both deploy human, financial, and material resources to achieve defined goals. So like organizations, projects must have specific goals against which the project manager’s decisions and team member actions are focused. Like mission measures, results-based project goals should be defined before work begins and refined as scope and/or circumstances change. Only when this occurs can a project be effectively managed and efficiently completed.[wcm_restrict plans=”41104, 25542, 25653″]
The goal of any observation program is to promote adherence to the performance standard delineated by management in order to consistently achieve superior results. Additionally, observation program credibility exists when those being observed can expect both repeatable evaluations by one manager and consistent evaluations by different managers for a given job performance relative to established standards. Therefore, management observations must be aligned with and focus on those critical standards required to ensure outstanding performance.[wcm_restrict plans=”41892, 25542, 25653″]
Project complexity seems to increase exponentially with team size. Larger teams require greater division of work and additional managers and supervisors to oversee these disparate efforts. Subsequently, the number of meetings increases to coordinate and align efforts between work groups, communication with stakeholders, and gather requirements and ideas from the organization’s subject matter experts. Absent meeting coordination, team members and line organization sponsors and participants become increasingly double and triple booked; causing individual frustration and diminishing the team’s effectiveness credibility.[wcm_restrict plans=”41098, 25542, 25653″]
Whether creating a new product or service or upgrading an internal process or software application, all projects fundamentally represent a change to the way an organization does business. This change is represented by two components, the technical object being added or altered and the emotional acceptance and implementation of the new technical object by the workforce. While each change component is equally important to the project’s success, it is the later that often poses the most risk of failure. To reduce this risk and thereby increase the project’s likelihood of success requires strong line ownership especially on the part of executives and managers.[wcm_restrict plans=”41091, 25542, 25653″]
StrategyDriven Podcast – Video Edition Episodes