Introducing the PELE model

Is it time to Evolve the Plan, Do, Check, Act Model?

Well. I think it is!

So I took the opportunity to use the platform provided at the EHS Congress in Belin to launch the PELE model. As George Box Said: “All Models are wrong, It’s just that some are useful.”

If so, why would you bother to create a new model? A fair and obvious question. Well, you can either see it as an evolution of Plan, Do, Check, Act or you may consider it as a radical departure from Demming’s original model.

Demming’s model originally designed for quality has been widely adopted across standards and within regulatory bodies as the method for effective health and safety management for many a year.

I think it’s dated, flawed and open to many aspects that cause it to fail.

I have no issue with a model that encourages organisations to plan, but we are failing because we then seem to think those plans are sacred, that they are right and accurately reflect the reality of how work is undertaken. Even worse, is that any adaptation of the plan or deviation from the plan is viewed as a failure, a violation. Quite frankly that’s bonkers.

Now, I’m sure there will be many people who refute this. Our system works, we’re out there observing what’s going on, pulling people up on their deviations and helping our organisation to act on the findings of observations, audits, etc.

That’s great but is the learning of value?

Are you learning about what it really takes to get work delivered, are you really learning about what is leading to a state of safety, do you understand all the inputs and processes and the variance required based on changing environments, competing demands and systemic friction that your people on a day-to-day basis are battling? In short, do you get and act on the ground truth?

What’s Ground Truth?  

It’s the reality of the worker, in their environment, discharging their duties. Working out how best to achieve the desired outcome, with what they have available. Sometimes, as OSH professionals we’re misaligned with the ground truth. We have preconceived expectations, and our documented processes, risk assessment and SOPs do not reflect the ground truth. People don’t always operate as we are taught they will, or how we believe they will. However, their actions and behaviours provide a rich source of learning to enable organisations to truly understand what is happening, why and how. So as a point of challenge, if this is how our people behave, then let’s help them to be able to make the best decisions. That’s ground truth and its value.

So, if the existing models are tired, dated and not fit for the ever-evolving world of work. If our challenges are the rate of change, people’s adaptation to change and the sustainability of our organisations. Then we need a model that’s fit for purpose, that can adapt, that puts the effort into the right areas, at the right time and understands the value of variance.

So, I present the PELE model. Nothing to do with the Brazilian legend but a model that focuses on Preparation, Execution, Learning and Evolving (PELE). The PELE Model looks at Organisations’ Preparation and Execution and requires curiosity in the variance between Preparation and Execution, this is rich Learning for the organisation, which if effectively utilised enables an organisation to Evolve. With the impact of leadership, peer and social influence at its core.

Why? Well, Preparation is ultimately where we can have the greatest impact on our risk reduction, in our prevention of harm, it’s how we can enhance the risk awareness of our employees, and where we can enhance our organisation’s resilience. The preparation phase is where we can consider how much effort are we prepared to put into the process of risk management. It enables a more honest conversation to occur about risk tolerance in our plans to execute the work.

To bring to life the difference preparation can make on risk management and therefore adaptation of work I used the true story of two gentlemen and their race to the South Pole:

Norwegian Roald Amundsen and British: Robert Falcon Scott.

Two men leading expeditions to the South Pole. Similar Ages and similar levels of experience, lead to two very different outcomes. So divergent in fact that despite their similar start dates there was a 34-day difference in reaching their destination and a fatal outcome for the Team that came second.

A quote from Amundsen demonstrates his commitment to preparation. Roald “Victory Awaits those who have everything in order. Luck they call it. Defeat is certain for those who have failed to take the necessary precautions in time. Bad luck they call it.” He said this at the south pole, being the first person in modern times to reach the pole.

Whilst they started their 1400mi round trip at practically the same time. These two men had very different approaches. With no means of rescue, it was an uncertain and harrowing journey into the unknown.

But why were their outcomes so different?

Amundsen was a trained sailor. To do his qualifications he took a 2000-mile bike ride from Norway to Spain and along the way practised being shipwrecked and experimented with eating raw dolphin. He had a mindset that was all about preparation, about being ready, acquiring the knowledge for what might occur and learning from his experiments in advance of needing to test his ideas and theories.

He went deep in preparation. One such preparation was to spend time with Eskimos. He learned about their speed of movement to reduce the risk of getting sweaty and developing frostbite, their use of dogs, he adopted their clothing. He observed, he learned, he practised and honed his skills. He didn’t want to wait until failure occurred, he wanted to prepare intensely so that he was able to weather storms that might come his way but also to take advantage of favourable conditions when they arrived.

Compare that to Scott: He didn’t cross-country ski train, he did not live with Eskimos, he certainly hadn’t eaten raw dolphin! He didn’t work with dogs. He chose ponies, which sweat and essentially get covered with a blanket of ice, ponies don’t eat meat, meaning another food source was required. He opted for the untested motorised sledge. The engines of this new and untested technology cracked within the first few days. His ponies failed early. This meant they had to man-haul their sledges. His team’s journey became an arduous mission on foot!

Amundsen was thorough with his preparation. He built buffers into his strategic planning, for unforeseen events. He flagged his depots with black flags (easy to see in an endless vista of white) and to an area of 10 km to hit in case he got lost. He also marked his journey every ½ mile. Scott. He put atop his storage depot a single flag, reducing his target area to having to be perfect. He didn’t mark his path. There was no room for variance in Scott’s approach.

Amundsen had 3 tonnes of supplies for 5 men starting out. Scott 1 tonne for 17 men. Amundsen always had extra of everything. Scott ran dangerously close to the limit. Scott only had one thermometer which he broke. Amundsen had 4 in case of damage.

When Amundsen and his team reached the South Pole, put up their tent and unfurled the Norwegian flag they had no idea that Scott and his team were over 360 miles behind them, on foot pulling their sledges. Scott arrived over a month after Amundsen. By this time Amundsen was 500 miles into the homeward leg of his journey, safely at his depot with eight easy days ahead of him. He arrived back to the start on the exact day he had penned in his plan.

Preparation is key. But no matter how prepared you are execution can require adaption. The variance between preparation and execution is where learning occurs. That learning is the gold. That’s how you continue to evolve your organisation’s safety culture. This is the PELE Model.

I use this extreme example as it’s an interesting way to consider if your safety management system is Amundsen or Scott. Are you making plans and checking the plans are implemented as set out with no consideration of change, or what might require adaptation to achieve the result?

It’s also a great example of the impact of behaviours not circumstances. They had divergent outcomes due to different behaviours. The circumstances for the first 56 days of their respective expeditions were the same regarding environmental conditions. This is why leadership, peer and social influence are housed at the model's centre. Anything that impacts behaviour is more likely to generate divergence than circumstance.

So, I imagine the question you now have is… is the model useful? Well, I’m not saying I am the lord and this is the way. I have asked you to meet me with curiosity, in the consideration of an alternative model. Into being prepared to be comfortable with accepting variance as a known within the world of work, not only accepting it but understanding that variance can lead to both positive and negative outcomes and that either outcome is a learning opportunity. I have asked you to recognise and consider the impact of leadership, peer and social influence on each of these stages on your workforce.

One conference participant who spoke to me following my presentation told me that what I’d presented was actually what they were doing within their organisation but that he hadn’t found anyone who had articulated in the way I had.

I genuinely believe that this has the potential to push you out of stasis, that you can use this to shift your focus away from the activities that give you a false sense of progress and on to focusing on where and how the work occurs, what workers require to be effective in their work and to understand the value of variance within your organisation to learn and evolve.

To my mind, stepping into acceptance and valuing variance will enable you to have a greater impact, and reduce life-changing injuries and irreversible occupational ill health.