Why does the field never exactly follow procedures ?
In 2026, most industrial companies have detailed procedures, validated operating methods, and up-to-date prevention plans. Yet accident rates aren’t falling at the same pace as documentary compliance. The reason lies in a phenomenon ergonomists have recognized for decades: there is, to varying degrees, a gap between prescribed work and actual work. The former describes what should happen on paper. The latter describes what actually happens, with day-to-day hazards, time constraints, and trade-offs.
At C2D Prévention, we help industrial and service companies identify, measure, and reduce this gap — not by adding more rules, but by giving the field the means to report what it actually experiences.
What is the gap between prescribed work and actual work?
Prescribed work corresponds to what is officially defined: instructions, operating procedures, job descriptions, safety rules, schedules. Actual work is what the operator concretely does to meet their objectives, given hazards, lack of resources, or interruptions.
This gap is not an occasional anomaly. Activity ergonomics research shows it is irreducible and exists even in the most automated environments. It becomes a safety problem when it remains invisible to management:
- Workarounds: an employee adapts a procedure deemed unsuited to the reality of their job.
- Trade-offs under time pressure: a safety step is shortened during a peak in activity.
- Ignored weak signals: a recurring anomaly is rarely formalized as long as it seems “manageable.”
- Variability of situations: two teams apply the same instruction in two different ways depending on context.
Ignoring this gap means managing prevention based on a picture of the company that no longer matches the reality on the ground.
Why does this gap remain invisible in most companies ?
An audit or compliance check measures a state at a given moment. It captures neither gradual micro-degradations, nor operational pressure, nor the informal warnings exchanged between colleagues before an incident occurs.
On the ground, three recurring causes explain this invisibility:
- Oral reporting: a risky situation is reported verbally, leaves no trace, and dilutes before reaching management.
- Perceived criticism: a signal can be experienced as an implicit criticism of the existing organization, which discourages it from being taken into account.
- Lack of structured follow-up: an action is decided in a meeting, but no one verifies it was carried out or that it resolved the original problem.
The result: management often discovers the true scale of these gaps at the annual review — or worse, at the moment of the accident.
How can prescribed and actual work be concretely compared on the ground?
Comparing prescribed and actual work is not about penalizing gaps, but about making them systematically visible, so action can be taken before they escalate into incidents. This approach generally relies on three complementary levers:
- Observing actual activity, not just documents: the only reliable way to know actual work is to observe it on site, at the workstation, in real situations — this is the purpose of our on-site assessment (état des lieux).
- Facilitating continuous signal reporting, rather than relying solely on audit visits or the annual review.
- Objectifying the gap with behavioral indicators and field data, to move beyond gut feeling and enable fact-based management.
This is the logic behind our CAP method, which structures the comparison between what is prescribed and what is observed, turning a one-off finding into a continuous improvement process.
What role does a field reporting tool like Watson play in this approach ?
Comparing prescribed and actual work requires a simple channel to capture what is really happening, without waiting for the next audit. That’s the role played by Watson, the tool developed by C2D.
Watson allows any level of the organization to report a risky situation in seconds, without going through a heavy hierarchical chain that dilutes information. It also ensures communication between the different layers of the organization: a signal reported by an operator remains traceable and visible until it is handled, instead of getting lost between two levels.
Finally, Watson makes it possible to track each action over time, through to closure, and to have behavioral field indicators — that is, a continuous picture of the gap between what is prescribed and what actually happens, rather than a snapshot taken once a year.
This traceability also has regulatory significance: Article L4121-1 of the French Labor Code imposes on employers an obligation of safety of result, which implies being able to demonstrate that an identifiable risk was indeed detected and addressed.
Presentation WATSON : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blqNoZKxfS0
Conclusion
The gap between prescribed work and actual work is not an organizational flaw to be fixed once and for all: it is a permanent reality that only a continuous process of reporting and comparison can keep under control. Making lasting progress in safety usually requires, in addition to existing procedures, a reliable channel between what is decided and what is actually experienced on the ground — supported by an observation method, management trained to receive signals, and a tool like Watson to objectify and track each gap over time.
Our contribution:
- Field diagnosis: identifying gaps between prescribed and actual work through our on-site assessment.
- CAP method: a structured approach to compare procedures against observed reality and prioritize actions.
- Watson deployment: implementation of the field reporting tool, cross-level communication, and corrective action tracking.
- Manager training: building their ability to receive a field signal without minimizing it, through our Safety Day workshops.
- Long-term support: tracking behavioral indicators over time, beyond the initial intervention, through our ongoing support and coaching.
- Regulatory alignment: ensuring the approach is consistent with the employer’s legal obligations (Labor Code, ISO 45001).
Key Takeaways
- The gap between prescribed and actual work is irreducible: it persists even in highly automated organizations.
- A one-off audit is not enough to detect it: it requires a continuous channel for field signal reporting.
- Three causes recur regularly in unaddressed gaps: untracked verbal reports, poorly received signals, lack of follow-up on actions.
- Comparing prescribed and actual work is a process, not a one-off check: it combines field observation, facilitated reporting, and objective indicators.
- A tool like Watson makes it possible to report, circulate, and track gaps over time, with traceability that is useful from a regulatory standpoint.
- The obligation of safety of result (Article L4121-1 of the Labor Code) makes this traceability strategic, not merely operational.
FAQ
What is the gap between prescribed work and actual work?
It is the difference between what is officially defined in procedures and what employees actually do to meet their objectives, given the hazards on the ground.
Why is this gap dangerous for workplace safety?
Because it often remains invisible to management, even though it can conceal weak signals that foreshadow accidents.
How can gaps between prescribed and actual work be detected?
Through direct observation of work situations, combined with a continuous channel for field signal reporting, rather than through an annual audit alone.
What is the CAP method developed by C2D Prévention?
It is a structured approach that systematically compares current procedures against activity actually observed on the ground, in order to prioritize corrective actions.
How does Watson help reduce the gap between prescribed and actual work ?
Watson facilitates the immediate reporting of a risky situation, circulates it among the organization’s levels, and allows each action to be tracked through to closure.
Does the employer have a legal obligation to detect these gaps ?
Yes. Article L4121-1 of the Labor Code imposes on the employer an obligation of safety of result, which implies being able to demonstrate that an identifiable risk was detected and addressed.
Does this gap also exist in highly automated activities ?
Yes. Ergonomics research shows that the gap between prescribed and actual work persists even in highly automated environments, since it arises from the variability of situations, not solely from human factors.
What is the difference between a compliance audit and a prescribed/actual comparison process ?
An audit measures a state of compliance at a given moment. The prescribed/actual comparison is a continuous process based on field observation and regular signal reporting.
Sources
- French Labor Code, Article L4121-1 — employer’s safety obligation, Légifrance: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000035640828/
- INRS, The Ergonomic Approach — the concept of the gap between prescribed and actual work, Institut National de Recherche et de Sécurité.
- INRS, Analyzing Workplace Accidents and Acting for Their Prevention (ED 6481) — assessing gaps between expected outcome and observed situation.
- Techniques de l’Ingénieur, Ergonomics: An Approach in the Service of Prevention — Analysis of the work situation — concept of the gap between prescribed and actual work.
- DRIDA M., Between Prescribed and Actual: Understanding the Current Drivers of Suffering at Work, Archives des maladies professionnelles et de l’environnement, vol. 67, no. 1, February 2006.
- ISO 45001:2018 — Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems, International Organization for Standardization.