Diorysos
Short answer
Do not start from the procedure document. Start from the few decisions where people really get it wrong, collect real situations for each one, and build a short branching scenario where every choice leads to a believable consequence. Have the scenario checked by a subject matter expert and by someone who does the job every day, then record each decision so you can see where the whole team struggles.
Most HSE procedures are written to be complete, not to be learned. They cover every case, cite every regulation and assume the reader has time. Put that document into slides with a quiz at the end and people will pass the quiz. Then, on a wet night with a delayed crew and a permit that is almost right, they will do what they always do.
Scenario-based eLearning closes that gap by making people practice the decision, not the reading. Here is the method we use to turn a written procedure into a scenario, step by step.
Step 1: Find the decisions, not the content
Sit down with a subject matter expert and ask one question: where do people get this wrong? Not what the procedure says, but where it breaks down in practice. You are looking for three to five decision points, for example:
- Starting work when the gas test was done more than the permitted time ago.
- Accepting a verbal handover instead of checking the isolation.
- Continuing a task when the standby person has to leave for a few minutes.
Everything in the procedure that does not relate to those decisions can stay in the reference document, linked from the module.
Step 2: Collect real situations
Good scenarios come from real events. Ask for anonymized near-miss reports, incident summaries and the stories supervisors tell new starters. The details make the scenario believable: the time of day, the pressure from the client, the colleague who says "we always do it this way". Change names and locations, keep the pressure.
Step 3: Map a small branch
Draw the scenario on paper before anyone opens an authoring tool. Keep it small: three or four decision points, two or three options each. Let wrong choices play out for a step or two, then bring the paths back together so the tree does not grow out of control.
A scenario with four well-chosen decisions teaches more than one with twenty trivial ones.
Step 4: Write consequences, not "Incorrect"
When someone makes the wrong call, show what happens next: the alarm, the stopped job, the investigation, the colleague who is exposed. Then explain the rule and why it exists. A consequence people can picture stays with them long after a red cross on a screen.
Step 5: Make the wrong answers tempting
The options that teach the most are the shortcuts people really take, written the way people really say them: "The reading was fine an hour ago, let's get going." If the wrong answers are obviously wrong, the scenario tests reading skills, not judgment.
Step 6: Review with the people who do the job
Have the draft checked twice: once by the subject matter expert for technical accuracy, and once by someone from the crew for realism. The expert will catch errors in the rule. The crew member will tell you that nobody calls it that on site, or that the radio would never be in that pocket. Both kinds of feedback matter.
Step 7: Assess the decision and record it
Decide what counts as a pass: every critical decision correct, or a minimum score across the scenario. Then record each decision, not just the final result. With xAPI tracking, you can see that 40 people passed and also that most of them hesitated at the same step, which tells you where the next toolbox talk should focus.
A worked example: confined space entry
Here is how the first decision of a confined space entry scenario might look after the steps above:
- Situation: You are the entrant. The permit is signed, the gas test was done at the start of the shift, and the job was delayed by two hours.
- Options: Enter now because the permit is valid. Ask for a new gas test before entry. Enter and carry your personal monitor as a backup.
- Consequences: The first and third options lead to a scene where the monitor alarms inside the space and the rescue plan is triggered. The second leads to a new reading that shows the atmosphere has changed.
- Explanation: Why the test must be repeated after a delay, with a link to the exact clause in your procedure.
Three more decisions like this one, each built on a real near miss, make a module of around ten to fifteen minutes that people remember.
Common mistakes
- Turning every paragraph of the procedure into a question.
- Branches so large that the review never ends.
- Characters who explain the rules to each other in full sentences.
- Feedback that only says right or wrong.
- Launching without testing the scenario with a real crew member.
