Understand the work. Agree what needs to change.
We start with your problem and the decision you need to make. Together we agree the scope, outputs, timing and what a useful result would look like. That may be a focused review, a re-design or help putting a change into practice. You do not need to buy a three-stage programme.
Designed with the people who do the work.
Every change is developed with your people and tested in their conditions before it is handed over. Not every engagement needs all three stages; what is useful is agreed first.
- DiagnoseSee what is actually happening: records, observation and conversations with the people involved.
- Co-designRe-design it with your people: options developed with those who do and manage the work.
- EmbedMake it the way the work runs: tested in realistic conditions, then handed over with ownership agreed.
What each stage involves.
What happens at each stage, and what you receive at the end of it.
We review relevant records, observe the work and speak with the people involved. We compare the intended process with what happens in practice, including the conditions that make a task difficult.
You receive a clear account of the problem, supporting evidence, priorities and recommended next steps. The level of detail depends on the agreed scope. A diagnostic can end here.
We develop options with the people who do and manage the work. Changes may address the task, instructions, information, tools, responsibilities or handovers. Required safeguards remain part of the design.
You receive the agreed design outputs, such as a revised workflow, a usable procedure or clearer decision criteria. We make ownership and the proposed checks explicit before implementation.
We help test the change in realistic conditions and resolve what does not work. Where software is involved, your implementer builds it; we help define and check the operational requirements.
You receive test findings, agreed handover information and clear responsibilities for follow-up. The completion criteria, remaining limitations and measures to watch are made explicit.
Four commitments.
What we hold to in every engagement, whatever its size.
We examine what people knew, the demands they faced and the options available. We do not assume either individual fault or a system explanation before looking at the evidence.
We study routine work as well as incidents. A workaround can reveal a design difficulty; it still needs to be checked against the risks and requirements involved.
We clarify which checks are needed, who can act and what evidence they need. Simplification must preserve applicable requirements and effective protections.
We involve the people who use and manage the process, then test proposed changes with them. Practical use and feedback inform the final design.
Prefer an illustration? Explore two models of how work is shaped: the gap between what an organisation plans and what the floor can do, and how pressures move a system toward its limits over time.
Explore the research and methods
Every figure on this site has a source.
These sources inform our work. The method is selected for the question and the available evidence; you do not need to study it before getting in touch.
Safety Science 27
Safety-I and Safety-II
The Field Guide to Understanding ‘Human Error’
Engineering a Safer World
AcciMap
Where the work affects a certified management system, changes are planned around the relevant requirements and audit arrangements. The aim is to improve practical use while maintaining continuity. Certification decisions remain with your certification body.