about procedures for procedures

[Douglas.Minnema@dp.doe.gov]

    I have appreciated all of the comments that I have received so far on 
    this topic, both directly to me and on RADSAFE.  Please don't stop now, 
    but I wanted to clarify something based upon a couple that I have seen.
    
    I fully agree that putting on additional layers of reviews is more 
    detrimental than benificial, and I am not proposing that.  However, in 
    our reviews of incidents within DOE, two of the bigger categories are 
    faulty procedures and conduct of personnel.  It appears that half the 
    time the procedure is recognized as faulty, and the rest of the time the 

    worker gets dinged for doing what he thought was right rather than 
    following a bad procedure.  This indicates to me that, at least in DOE, 
    we either have problems with our review processes, our we make the 
    procedures too difficult to be followed.
    
    What I am looking for is a different way of doing this, rather than 
    adding another layer.  However, most responses that I have received 
    indicate that most reviews are still performed in an unstructured manner 

    - "unstructured" meaning that the quality of the review depends heavily 
    on the thuroughness, completeness, and commitment of the reviewers, and 
    not on any particular process by which the review is performed.  For 
    example, walkthroughs work great to determine if the procedure will work 

    correctly, but often do very little to tell you what could go wrong.  
    Those are only discovered on the job.
    
    Again, I am very appreciative of this discussion. Please consider this 
as 
    a challenge and not a rebuttal.  Any additional ideas?
    
    Doug Minnema, CHP
    Defense Programs, DOE
    <Douglas.Minnema@dp.doe.gov>