Planning Questions: What Could Make This Plan Wrong?

Human Performance weekly series: lesson 31 of 52.

A 5–10 minute crew discussion, plus time to verify the actual controls. The crew talk and Word version are public. Separate supervisor and attendance records are included with free Safety & Systems membership.

Why this matters

A plan can be consistent and still depend on the wrong starting condition. Before issuing the work package, invite its users to challenge its basis. A useful question identifies evidence that could change the method, rather than seeking agreement.

Learning objective

Find a consequential planning assumption and identify contrary evidence before the work package is released.

Key hazards or failure points

Copied solutions outside their scope; missing inputs; dismissed concerns; uncertain success criteria; convenient explanations; a review completed before users can contribute.

Practical controls

• Select an important planned activity and state what must be true for its method to work. Identify the source of each consequential input and separate verified information from unresolved assumptions.
• Invite workers and affected technical roles to explain what could invalidate the proposed approach. Ask about changed configuration, access, sequence and later consequences. Resolve differing evidence without requiring the person raising it to prove a failure.
• Assign each open question an owner, needed evidence and decision point. Route technical judgments through the designated authority. Keep dependent release held when a required basis remains uncertain; a planning discussion cannot approve a workaround.

Verify It in the Field

• On a draft package, mark one statement that could be wrong. Trace its source, date and scope to the actual planned work. Record what supports it and what remains missing without changing equipment for the exercise.
• Ask a person familiar with execution for a concrete counterexample. Have the appropriate reviewer examine it against applicable requirements. Record the actual disposition, reviewer and time; a dismissed comment is not a checked condition.
• Follow the answer into the revised package and its restrictions. Confirm required later field checks have owners and safe methods. Label those checks pending until performed; approved planning does not establish that physical protection is installed.

Stop and reassess

Hold the dependent planning release for conflicting information, an unresolved required input or a method users cannot perform safely. Reopen review when scope or conditions change. Before exposure, use the task’s separate control checks and work-authorization process.

Crew discussion questions

• What would make this proposed method unsuitable?
• Which fact would change our preferred plan?
• Where will the answer and its limits reach the crew?

For each required control, record its acceptance source and criterion, safe verification method, responsible checker, actual result and time. Use VERIFIED, HOLD/NOT VERIFIED, or N/A with a reason. A tick alone is not evidence. Complete all applicable task inspections; do not enter danger or improvise a test to fill out a form.

Leader preparation and practical detail

Challenge the package before the job arrives

Illustrative situation: a repeated maintenance package assumes the same access as the previous outage. The installer identifies a new obstruction. The planner records that difference and obtains the responsible assessment before issuing the affected method. This is a preparation exercise, distinct from recognizing an unexpected indication while carrying out a step.

Do not turn questioning into permission to improvise

The DOE planning excerpt encourages checking facts and considering different explanations. It does not make a crew discussion an engineering approval. The response may require a new design input, supplier information or a revised procedure. Keep the question traceable to the authority who can resolve it and to the portion of work that depends on it.

Separate two kinds of evidence

A reviewed drawing supports the planned arrangement. A required field inspection establishes the actual condition at the relevant time. Record both without merging their status. The Assumptions lesson supplies a detailed validation record; this lesson creates space for contrary evidence before the package is issued.

Short supervisor field check

• Important inputs and assumptions separated.
• Affected users invited to challenge the plan.
• Contrary evidence given a documented disposition.
• Open questions retain owners and hold points.
• Revision and pending field checks communicated.

Confirm the relevant trained/authorized people, unresolved items, interim protection, correction owner and recheck. Record required release authority and rebrief anyone affected. The separate sheet supports these records; it does not replace a specialist inspection, permit or engineering determination.

Attendance and follow-through

Use the separate attendance sheet for participants, roles, discussion concerns, actions and late-arrival rebriefs. Attendance is not proof of competence, functioning controls or authorization to work. Keep completed records private under employer procedures.

Source acknowledgment

This resource draws on the U.S. Department of Energy’s DOE-HDBK-1028-2009, Human Performance Improvement Handbook, Volume 2 (June 2009). Todd Jerome Jenkins makes no claim of authorship or copyright ownership in the original U.S. Government work. New explanations, examples, exercises and layouts are Todd Jerome Jenkins adaptations. No endorsement by DOE or the U.S. Government is implied. Third-party material credited in the handbook remains attributed to its source; this notice does not claim rights in that material.

Source excerpt: Volume 2/VOLUME 2 QUESTIONING ATTITUDE – WORK PLANNING AND PREPARATION.pdf; Printed pp. 13, 14, 15. The June 2009 handbook supplies concepts; this lesson uses original explanations and exercises.

Technical scope and references

References reviewed October 9, 2026. DOE human-performance tools and OSHA recommended practices support preparation and discussion; they do not establish universal technical acceptance criteria. Apply the current task procedure, manufacturer instructions, permit and required competent or qualified decisions. A successful exercise does not replace required training, technical verification or work authorization.

1. DOE-HDBK-1028-2009, Volume 2 — Questioning during planning — June 2009 illustrative guidance; Printed pp. 13, 14, 15. Original ZIP excerpt inspected in full; no claim of universal mandated process.
2. OSHA — Hazard Prevention and Control — Recommended practices, action items 3 and 6: implementation responsibility and effectiveness checks; not technical acceptance criteria.

Connect this discussion to your JHA/JSA

Use the JHA/JSA planning and field-verification worksheet to record the actual task steps, hazards, responsible roles and controls. No task-specific worked example is linked for this topic yet. Return to What Changed Today? when the plan or conditions change.

Related Todd Jerome Jenkins articles: How to Conduct a Job Safety Analysis and What Is Human and Organizational Performance?.

Related crew discussions

• Questioning in the Field: Notice the Mismatch
• Assumptions: Show What Is Known and What Is Not

Continue the weekly series

• Lesson 30: Incident Learning: Reconstruct the Conditions and Decisions
• Lesson 32: Technical Task Briefing: Clarify the Deliverable Before Work

Put one check into practice

Use the free JHA/JSA planning and field-verification worksheet to record today’s change, the required protection and the evidence needed before exposure.