Detail of issues

1. The need for controls around change, configuration, risk assessment etc. is acknowledged and well understood however the process is seen as overly cumbersome and not designed with the user experience in mind. 

2. The ACR process is viewed as very bureaucratic and long winded to the extent that it puts staff off even wanting to make simple changes.  The example quoted was that of the installation of an outside tap to aid with a process in which the team gave up in the end as it was too difficult.  There also appears to be little/no training available for Asset Change Managers at present.  Given that all changes require an ACM and that they are already on short supply then this just exacerbates the situation. 

3. Time and effort required to place an order through Supply Chain causes a great deal of frustration.  An example was given for the placement of a contract to undertake some welding on process equipment which was held because of a debate about quality standards for a job that did not require anything particularly onerous.  Not only does this give a sense of policing but also conveys that view that the competent workforce cannot be trusted to make the correct judgements. 

4. A further example of what is considered overly conservative application of process/policy/regulations pertained to the search and lock up regime that was seen to be imposed on the staff within F13.1 rather than a consultative approach being taken. 

5. The current Safety Basis for F13.1 has not yet been updated to a Non-Nuclear Risk Assessment in line with current company process.  This is believed to be due to priority being allocated elsewhere within the business.  This highlights the dilemma faced by operational areas when changes in company standards are introduced without a clear, company wide impact assessment or implementation plan. 

6. There is limited understanding of the senior organisation structure within Operations beyond the Tech Centre head level. 

There is a general view that the rhetoric surrounding improvement programmes does not match the reality of life within operational facilities.  There remains a high degree of frustration with good, competent staff trying to achieve despite the system.  If we are to achieve the principle of “Front Line First” then we must ensure that our processes and their application are designed with the user in mind.