Decision: Competency Verification UI and User Experience
Quick Summary
How should the user interface handle competency verification for different worker types to balance safety requirements with operational efficiency?
Context
The competency verification user interface needs to balance safety requirements with usability across different worker types. Two specific UI patterns have emerged as design questions:
Current State:
- General competency checkbox exists: "Is competent and sufficiently prepared to work on this track"
- No differentiated UI for different worker supervision levels
- No specific verification process for DS (Direct Supervision) workers
- QR code workers follow same UI patterns as manual workers
- Single verification approach regardless of worker competency status
Business Context:
- Regular workers with validated competencies should have efficient lock-on process
- DS workers require additional oversight and verification by supervisors
- QR code possession indicates prior competency verification completed
- Protectors need clear process framework for verifying DS workers
- Balance needed between safety assurance and operational efficiency
- Competency verification serves both safety and compliance purposes
UI Design Context:
- Current checkbox described as "not a hard requirement" but covers: competencies, briefing on hazards/limits, required PPE
- DS workers need structured verification approach for supervisor-worker interaction
- Different worker types may benefit from different verification patterns
- Risk of UI friction reducing system adoption vs safety verification needs
Decision Required
How should the user interface handle competency verification to provide appropriate safety oversight while maintaining operational efficiency for different worker types?
Success Criteria
What does a good decision look like?
- [ ] Provides appropriate safety verification for different worker supervision levels
- [ ] Minimises UI friction for workers with validated competencies
- [ ] Supports supervisor oversight processes for DS workers
- [ ] Maintains compliance and audit trail for safety verification
- [ ] Creates clear, intuitive user experience for field operations
- [ ] Balances safety requirements with operational efficiency
- [ ] Supports protector decision-making with clear verification framework
Options
Option 1: Differentiated UI by Worker Type
Description: Different verification UI for regular workers (informational text), DS workers (explicit checkboxes), and QR workers (no additional verification).
Analysis
Pros:
- Tailored user experience matching supervision requirements for each worker type
- Reduced friction for competent workers while maintaining oversight for DS workers
- Clear process framework for protectors supervising DS workers
- Eliminates redundant verification for QR code users (already verified)
- Supports compliance through structured DS verification documentation
- Maintains efficiency benefits of QR code system
Cons:
- Creates inconsistent UI patterns that may confuse users
- Implementation complexity with conditional UI logic
- Different training requirements for different worker type flows
- Potential for confusion about when verification is required
- Reduces explicit verification for regular workers
Risks:
- UI inconsistency confuses field operations - Mitigation: Clear visual design and comprehensive training
- Reduced verification for regular workers affects safety - Mitigation: Helper text maintains awareness, competency handled through role assignment
- Complex conditional logic introduces bugs - Mitigation: Thorough testing of all worker type scenarios
Implementation Effort: 3-4 weeks (conditional UI components, worker type detection, different verification flows) Maintenance Overhead: Medium (multiple UI patterns, conditional logic maintenance)
Option 2: Universal Verification Checkbox
Description: Keep consistent verification checkbox for all worker types with same verification requirements across the board.
Analysis
Pros:
- Consistent user experience across all worker types
- Simple implementation with single verification pattern
- Explicit verification confirmation for all workers
- Easy to train and understand for field operations
- Uniform compliance and audit approach
Cons:
- Creates unnecessary friction for competent workers and QR code users
- Redundant verification for workers whose competency already validated
- Doesn't provide structured framework for DS worker supervision
- Eliminates efficiency benefits of QR code system
- One-size-fits-all approach doesn't match different supervision needs
Risks:
- UI friction reduces system adoption - Mitigation: Training and change management
- Redundant verification for QR users negates QR benefits - Mitigation: Accept reduced efficiency for consistency
- Inadequate DS supervision framework - Mitigation: Additional training and procedures
Implementation Effort: 1 week (maintain current implementation) Maintenance Overhead: Low (single UI pattern)
Option 3: Detailed Verification for All Workers
Description: Apply detailed DS-style verification checkboxes (PPE, briefing, worksite limits) to all worker types for comprehensive verification.
Analysis
Pros:
- Comprehensive safety verification for all workers
- Detailed compliance documentation and audit trail
- Consistent detailed process across all worker types
- Maximum safety assurance through explicit verification
- Clear checklist approach reduces oversight errors
Cons:
- Significant UI friction for all workers including competent ones
- Eliminates efficiency benefits of competency validation and QR codes
- Disproportionate overhead for workers who don't require direct supervision
- May reduce system adoption due to process overhead
- Redundant with existing competency validation systems
Risks:
- Process overhead reduces operational efficiency - Mitigation: Accept reduced efficiency for maximum safety
- System adoption suffers due to friction - Mitigation: Training and mandate compliance
- Redundant verification creates confusion - Mitigation: Clear process documentation
Implementation Effort: 2-3 weeks (detailed verification UI for all worker types) Maintenance Overhead: Low-Medium (single detailed pattern)
Constraints & Requirements
Must Have
- Appropriate verification level for worker supervision requirements
- Clear audit trail for safety compliance purposes
- Support for DS worker supervision by protectors
- Integration with competency model and QR code system
- Usable interface for field operations conditions
Should Have
- Operational efficiency for workers with validated competencies
- Clear visual distinction between different verification requirements
- Minimal training requirements for field operations staff
- Flexibility to adjust verification requirements based on operational feedback
Must Not
- Create unnecessary barriers for competent workers
- Eliminate necessary supervision for DS workers
- Undermine efficiency benefits of competency validation systems
- Create confusing or inconsistent user experience patterns
Research & Evidence
Completed Research
- [x] Current verification checkbox analysis - Result: Described as "not hard requirement" covering competencies, PPE, briefing
- [x] DS worker supervision requirements - Result: Need structured oversight framework for protector-worker interaction
- [x] QR code verification flow - Result: QR generation includes competency verification, redundant to re-verify
- [x] Field operations feedback - Result: Balance needed between safety and efficiency
Outstanding Research
- [ ] User testing of different verification UI patterns
- [ ] Field operations survey on verification preferences
- [ ] Compliance team requirements for audit trail detail
- [ ] Safety incident analysis related to verification gaps
Evidence & Data
- Current checkbox covers multiple verification aspects but creates friction
- DS workers inherently require more oversight than competent workers
- QR code system designed to pre-validate competency reducing verification needs
- Field operations prioritise efficiency while maintaining safety standards
Stakeholders & RACI
| Role | Person/Team | Responsible | Accountable | Consulted | Informed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decision Maker | Product Owner | ✅ | |||
| UX Designer | Design Team | ✅ | |||
| Safety Manager | Safety Team | ✅ | |||
| Technical Lead | Development Team | ✅ | |||
| Field Operations | RPOs & Site Protectors | ✅ | |||
| Compliance Team | Legal/Compliance | ✅ | |||
| Implementation Team | Development Team | ✅ |
Impact Assessment
Blocked Items
- Worker lock-on UI implementation awaits verification pattern decision
- DS worker supervision workflow design depends on verification approach
- QR code integration requires clarity on additional verification requirements
Affected Components
- Lock-On UI Components - Impact: Major changes for differentiated UI (Option 1), conditional logic implementation
- Worker Verification Service - Impact: Different verification rules based on worker type
- QR Code Integration - Impact: Verification bypass logic for QR users
- Audit System - Impact: Different audit patterns for different verification approaches
- Mobile App UX - Impact: User flow updates for chosen verification pattern
Timeline Impact
- If decided by deadline: Can proceed with UI implementation
- If delayed by 1 week: Minor impact on UI development schedule
- If delayed by 1 month: Blocks lock-on interface completion and user testing
Decision Log
| Date | Update | Author |
|---|---|---|
| 2025-09-09 | Decision created based on UI design questions about competency verification patterns | Simon + Claude |
Next Actions
Immediate (Next 3 Days)
- [ ] Review UI patterns with UX Designer
- [ ] Validate verification requirements with Safety Team
- [ ] Assess field operations preferences for verification approach
Short Term (Next 2 Weeks)
- [ ] Consult with Compliance Team on audit trail requirements
- [ ] User testing of different verification UI approaches
- [ ] Review DS supervision framework with Field Operations
- [ ] Make final decision
Decision Meeting
- Scheduled: [To be scheduled]
- Attendees: Product Owner, UX Designer, Safety Manager, Technical Lead, Field Operations Representative
- Agenda: Review UI options, assess safety and usability requirements, make decision
References & Links
Requirements
- [To be linked]: Worker competency verification requirements
- [To be linked]: DS worker supervision requirements
- [To be linked]: User experience requirements
Specifications
- [To be linked]: Lock-on UI specification
- [To be linked]: Worker verification workflow specification
Related Decisions
- ADR-010: QR Code Security and Trust Model (affects verification requirements for QR users)
- ADR-011: Worker Competency Requirements for Lock-On (defines competency model this UI implements)
- ADR-013: DS Worker Lock-On Process (defines DS supervision requirements)
Decision Outcome
To be filled when decision is made
Final Decision: [Decision made]
Rationale: [Why this decision was made]
Decision Date: [Date]