Permit to work (PTW) systems, are a critical control for managing high-risk activities. When they work well, they provide clarity, structure and confidence that work is being carried out safely.
When they do not, they can become a source of frustration, false assurance and unmanaged risk.
There are many types of system from paper and spreadsheets at one end to an electronic permit to work system at the other. Many of the problems seen with Permit to Work systems are not caused by the concept itself, but by how the system is designed, implemented and used in practice. Understanding these common issues is the first step towards improving control of work. This article looks at potential issues with implementation of a Permit to Work system and then examines some key functionality that it's important to get right.
Permits Treated as Paperwork Rather Than Control
One of the most common problems is treating the Permit to Work as an administrative task rather than a safety control. Permits are completed because they are required, not because they add value. When this happens, permits become routine, repetitive and disconnected from the real risks of the job. People focus on getting the permit signed rather than understanding the hazards and controls. This creates a false sense of security where work appears controlled on paper but is poorly managed in reality.
A Permit to Work system only works when it actively influences how work is planned and carried out.
Weak Ownership and Accountability
Permit to Work systems rely on clear roles and responsibilities. Problems arise when ownership is unclear or treated casually. It may not be clear who is responsible for reviewing the permit, who authorises the work, who supervises it, or who closes it. In some cases, the same individual fills multiple roles without independent checks. This weakens accountability and increases the likelihood of missed hazards or unchecked assumptions.
Resistance from Users
Resistance to Permit to Work systems is common, particularly in environments where people feel the process slows work down or adds unnecessary bureaucracy. This resistance is rarely about safety itself. It is usually a response to how the system is experienced day to day.
A frequent source of resistance is when permits are seen as paperwork rather than protection. If employees feel that permits do not reflect real work conditions, are filled with generic hazards, or exist only to satisfy audits, engagement will naturally decline. People comply because they have to, not because they believe the system helps them work safely.
Addressing this resistance starts with improving the quality and relevance of permits. When permits are task-specific, clearly linked to real hazards and genuinely influence how work is carried out, employees are far more likely to see their value. A permit that changes how a job is planned or sequenced is much easier to respect than one that simply repeats standard wording.
Involving employees in the development and review of Permit to Work processes also reduces resistance. People are more willing to follow systems they have helped shape. This does not mean lowering standards, but ensuring the system reflects how work actually happens rather than how it is imagined in procedures.
Training plays a key role, but it must go beyond explaining how to complete a permit. Effective training explains why the Permit to Work system exists, how it protects people, and how failures in permit control have led to incidents in the past. When people understand the purpose, compliance becomes more meaningful.
Leadership behaviour is equally important. If supervisors treat permits as a formality, rush approvals or ignore permit conditions under pressure, employees will follow that example. Consistent leadership attention, visible challenge and willingness to stop work when permit conditions are not met send a clear message that the system matters.
Finally, resistance often reduces when people see that the system responds to feedback. When employees raise concerns about impractical controls, unnecessary permits or unclear roles, and those concerns lead to improvements, trust grows. This reinforces the idea that the Permit to Work system exists to support safe work, not to get in the way of it.
Resistance is not something to be overcome through enforcement alone. It is usually a signal that the system is not working as intended. Addressing the underlying causes strengthens both engagement and safety performance
Inconsistent Application Across Teams or Sites
In organisations with multiple sites or contractors, Permit to Work systems are often applied inconsistently. Different teams interpret requirements differently, use different standards or apply different levels of rigour. This inconsistency creates confusion and increases risk, particularly when people move between sites or work under multiple management structures.
Consistency does not mean inflexibility, but it does require clear standards and expectations.
Insufficient Training and Competence
A Permit to Work system is only effective if the people using it understand its purpose and their responsibilities within it. Common problems include insufficient training, over-reliance on experience rather than competence, or assumptions that everyone understands how the system works.
Training should focus not just on how to complete a permit, but on why the system exists and how it supports safe work.
Poor Quality Risk Information
Permits are only as good as the information they contain. A common issue is generic or poorly thought-out hazard identification and control measures. Copy-and-paste hazards, vague control statements and outdated risk information reduce the effectiveness of the permit. When permits do not reflect the specific task, location and conditions, they stop being useful as a decision-making tool.
High-quality permits require time, thought and task-specific consideration, not templates filled in by habit.
Poor Integration with Other Safety Processes
Permit to Work systems often sit alongside other safety processes such as risk assessments, isolations, action tracking and incident reporting. Problems arise when these processes are poorly integrated. For example, permits may reference risk assessments that are outdated or difficult to access. Actions identified during work may not be tracked. Near misses may not feed back into permit planning.
Permits Not Updated When Conditions Change
Work environments are dynamic. Conditions change due to weather, equipment availability, personnel changes or the introduction of other activities. A common failure is continuing work under an existing permit even when conditions have changed significantly. Permits may not be reviewed, amended or suspended when they should be.
A Permit to Work system must support dynamic risk management, not lock teams into decisions made hours or days earlier.
Catering for multiple activity types
Activities such as working at heights, confined space, electrical work etc will require different questions to be answered. Traditional paper based systems often contain sections for each activity, but this can result in wastage and admin overhead since not all activities will be required for every permit. A good digital system will allow customisation of permit questions, and it will also show only the relevant permit sections .
Too Many Permits, Too Little Focus
In some environments, Permit to Work systems are applied so broadly that they lose their impact. Permits are raised for low-risk or routine tasks that do not need formal authorisation. This overloads the system, increases workload and makes it harder to focus on genuinely high-risk activities. When everything requires a permit, nothing stands out as critical.
Effective Permit to Work systems are selective. They focus on activities where formal control genuinely adds value.
Failure to Learn from Experience
Many Permit to Work systems fail to improve over time. Issues, near misses and incidents related to permit failures are not reviewed systematically. Permits are issued, work is completed and the system continues unchanged, even when weaknesses are known. This leads to repeated problems and missed opportunities for improvement.
Implementing a digital permit to work system should bring significant benefits in saved time, reduced errors and improved configuration.
Commitment is needed
Permit to Work systems are powerful tools when used properly, but they are not self-protecting. Common problems arise when systems become routine, overloaded or disconnected from real work. Addressing these issues requires clarity of purpose, strong ownership, visible leadership and a focus on how work actually happens.
When Permit to Work systems are treated as living controls rather than paperwork, they provide the structure and confidence needed to manage high-risk work safely and effectively.
