Organisational Change & Performance Influencing Factors (PIFs)

We analyse the human and organisational factors that affect performance in safety-critical operations, assess how planned or ongoing organisational change affects those factors, and identify what needs to be managed to keep human error probability within acceptable limits during and after the change.

Every engagement is led by Dr. Chizaram Dagogo-Nwankwo, Chartered Ergonomist (C.ErgHF, CIEHF), with published peer-reviewed research in human factors and process safety and direct experience with organisational change in high-hazard industries.

What are Performance Influencing Factors?

Performance Influencing Factors (PIFs) are the conditions that affect how reliably a person performs a safety-critical task. They are not individual attributes; they are features of the work system that either support or degrade human performance.

The HSE's human factors guidance identifies the core PIF categories: workload and time pressure, fatigue and shift arrangements, procedure quality and information availability, training and competence, communication and team working, equipment and tools, working environment (noise, temperature, lighting, workspace), supervision and leadership, and individual factors such as distraction and stress.

PIFs matter in practice because they explain the gap between what people are expected to do and what they actually do. A task carried out under high time pressure, by a fatigued operator, using an outdated procedure, in a noisy environment, is not the same task that appears in a risk assessment written at a desk. The task is the same; the human error probability is not. Analysing PIFs is the method for making that difference visible and manageable.

PIFs appear in SCTA as the conditions that shape error likelihood for specific tasks. They appear in HRA as the performance-shaping factors that modify the baseline human error probability. They appear in organisational change assessments as the variables most likely to be disrupted by a change and least likely to be addressed in a conventional change management plan.

Why organisational change creates human performance risk

Most organisations manage the technical dimensions of change. New equipment is commissioned and tested. New processes are mapped and documented. New systems go through acceptance testing before handover.

The human performance dimensions of change receive less attention, and they are the ones that most commonly drive post-change incidents.

A restructure that reduces headcount changes workload distribution across the remaining team. If the workload analysis assumed that certain tasks would be transferred between roles but the transfer was not built into training or job design, the gap remains invisible until someone is carrying more than they can reliably manage.

A technology upgrade replaces familiar interfaces with new ones. Operators who have built reliable mental models of how a process behaves through years of working with existing instrumentation must rebuild those models from scratch. The period immediately after a major control system migration is statistically one of the highest-risk periods in a facility's operational life.

A shift pattern change alters fatigue profiles in ways that may not be immediately apparent from the shift design on paper. Cumulative fatigue across the first weeks of a new pattern can degrade performance on safety-critical tasks before anyone has identified it as a problem.

Research into major accident investigations consistently shows that significant organisational changes preceded many of the worst incidents in high-hazard industry in the past three decades. Piper Alpha, Texas City, and Deepwater Horizon all had preceding periods of significant organisational change. In each case, the change management process addressed technical and operational dimensions while the human performance risks went unexamined.

Who needs this service

1. COMAH-regulated facilities undergoing restructure or headcount reduction
   The Management of Change (MOC) process for COMAH sites is required to identify and manage risks arising from change. Most MOC processes are designed for technical change. Organisational change involving shifts in role responsibilities, team size, supervision ratios, or competence profiles warrants the same rigour applied through a human factors lens.
2. Offshore operators facing major operational change
   Duty holders under the Offshore Installations (Safety Case) Regulations 2015 must demonstrate that major accident hazards are managed effectively. Significant changes to crewing arrangements, shift systems, or control room staffing alter the human performance baseline the safety case was built on. A PIF assessment documents what has changed and how it has been managed.
3. Oil and gas and chemical operators managing technology transitions
   DCS replacements, SCADA upgrades, and control system migrations all involve a period where operators are transitioning from one mental model to another. PIF assessment during the transition period identifies the highest-risk intervals and recommends specific mitigations.
4. Any high-hazard organisation going through significant workforce change
   Rapid growth, integration of a recently acquired workforce, significant use of contractors in previously permanent roles, or large-scale use of agency staff in safety-critical positions all change the PIF profile of the operation in ways that may not be captured through standard risk assessment.
5. Organisations following a performance-related incident during or after a period of change
   Where an incident investigation identifies organisational factors as contributing causes, a PIF assessment provides the structured analysis that underpins the corrective action programme.

What our service includes

1. PIF assessment
   Structured analysis of the performance influencing factors relevant to the operation or change being assessed. Each PIF category assessed for current adequacy and for the direction and magnitude of change expected from the planned organisational change. Findings documented in a PIF register with current rating, predicted post-change rating, and recommended management actions.
2. Organisational change risk assessment
   Assessment of the human performance risks associated with a specific planned change. Covers the change itself, the transition period, and the steady-state position post-change. Identifies the highest-risk intervals and the specific PIF categories most at risk of degradation during each phase.
3. Workload analysis
   Quantitative and qualitative analysis of task demands relative to available resource. Applied where headcount changes, role redesign, or technology change is expected to alter workload distribution. Identifies where workload will exceed what can be reliably managed and what reallocation, tooling, or process changes are needed to bring it within safe limits.
4. Fatigue and shift design review
   Assessment of shift arrangements against fatigue risk criteria, including the HSE's fatigue risk index and the HSE guidance document on managing shiftwork (HSG256). Where proposed shift changes carry fatigue risk, the assessment provides the evidence base for either modifying the design or implementing compensating controls.
5. Competence gap analysis
   Assessment of the competence requirements for roles affected by organisational change against the current competence profile of the workforce. Identifies gaps that could affect safety-critical task performance during and after the transition and recommends training and mentoring programmes to close them before the change goes live.
6. Management of Change (MOC) human factors support
   Integration of human factors and PIF assessment into the existing MOC process. We work alongside the change management team to apply human factors criteria at the change assessment stage, not as a retrospective audit after the change has been implemented.

PIFs in the regulatory context

The HSE's human factors guidance, published through the Human Factors Roadmap and the HFRG (Human Factors in Risk and Governance) framework, identifies PIFs as a core consideration in the management of safety-critical operations. HPOG (Human Performance Operations Guidance) provides detailed guidance on PIF management in oil and gas operations specifically.

IOGP Report 454 references PIF analysis as part of the human factors work required across the operational lifecycle. For COMAH safety cases, the HSE competent authority expects to see evidence that human factors, including organisational factors and their influence on human performance, have been considered in the major accident hazard identification and risk management process.

An organisational change that has gone through a formal MOC process but has not included a PIF assessment leaves a documented gap in the human factors consideration of the change. In a post-incident review or regulatory inspection, that gap is visible.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between a PIF assessment and a risk assessment?
A conventional risk assessment identifies hazards and the controls needed to manage them. A PIF assessment identifies the conditions that affect how reliably those controls will be applied by the people responsible for them. The two are complementary: the risk assessment defines what needs to be done; the PIF assessment assesses how likely it is that it will be done correctly under the conditions that actually exist.

Does PIF assessment apply to office-based organisational change, or only high-hazard industries?
PIFs are relevant in any safety-critical work context, including healthcare, transport, and complex service delivery. The most rigorous PIF assessment frameworks were developed for high-hazard process industries, but the underlying concepts apply wherever human performance affects safety-critical outcomes. We scope the depth of analysis to the hazard profile of the organisation.

How does PIF assessment fit into a Management of Change process?
MOC processes in high-hazard industries are typically designed around technical change. Adding a PIF assessment step brings human factors into the MOC at the change evaluation stage: before the change is approved, not after it has been implemented. The PIF assessment identifies which human performance conditions will be altered by the change and what management actions are required before go-live.

Can you assess PIFs retrospectively, after a change has already been implemented?
Yes. A post-change PIF assessment establishes the current PIF profile following implementation and identifies gaps between the expected post-change state and what actually resulted. This is the appropriate starting point for organisations that have already implemented a change and are experiencing performance concerns or have had an incident in the post-change period.

What does a PIF register look like?
A PIF register is a structured document listing each PIF category relevant to the operation, its current adequacy rating (typically on a five-point scale from significantly inadequate to fully adequate), its expected post-change rating, the evidence base for both ratings, and the management actions recommended to address any degradation. The format is adapted to the regulatory context: for COMAH and offshore safety cases the register is structured for inclusion in the safety case documentation.

Discuss a project

Organisational change and PIF assessments are scoped individually. Tell us about the change you are managing, the sector you operate in, and the regulatory framework, and we will come back within two working days with a proposed approach.