Action planning
Analysis and consultation matter only if they translate into change. An action plan turns priority hazards and focus group insights into specific, owned, time-bound commitments - and documents the due diligence that workers and regulators expect.
Stop. Have you run focus groups - or an alternative consultation? Survey data tells you what is elevated; consultation tells you why. Without that, actions may address the wrong root cause. Return to Focus Groups & Contextual Inquiry →
Principles for effective action planning
Elimination and substitution - redesigning the work to remove the hazard - should be the first consideration, not the last. Training and policies supplement structural change; they don't replace it.
Every action needs a named person - not a team, not a role. The owner is the person who will be asked at the next review why it isn't done, which may not be the person doing the work. Managers own actions even when delivery is delegated.
Short actions within 30 days build momentum and demonstrate good faith. Longer structural changes need milestones, not just a due date. If an action has no timeline, it has no urgency.
Some actions depend on others - you can't train managers in wellbeing conversations before the content is scoped, or restructure a role without a confirmed business case. Map prerequisites before setting target dates. Parallelise where possible; forcing artificial sequencing stalls the plan.
Workers who took part in the survey and focus groups should hear what actions are being taken, by whom, by when. Silence after consultation erodes trust faster than no consultation at all.
Build in a 90-day review. What's done? What isn't, and why? What's the revised timeline? Treat the plan as a live document, not a one-off compliance exercise.
Hierarchy of controls
Australian WHS Codes of Practice require applying the hierarchy of controls to psychosocial hazards. Here's what each level looks like in practice.
| Level | Example | Effectiveness |
|---|---|---|
| Eliminate | Remove the hazard source entirely - e.g. redesign a role to remove chronic overload by redistributing tasks, not adding resources. | Highest |
| Substitute | Replace a high-risk practice with a lower-risk one - e.g. swap always-on communication expectations for defined response windows. | High |
| Isolate | Separate the hazard from those it affects - e.g. rotate emotionally demanding client contact to limit cumulative exposure. | Moderate–High |
| Engineer | Change work systems - e.g. implement workload management tools, improve scheduling processes, create clearer escalation pathways. | Moderate |
| Administrative | Policies, procedures, training - e.g. psychosocial risk policy, manager training to recognise and respond to distress, grievance processes. | Low–Moderate |
| PPE equivalent | Individual-level supports - EAP, resilience programs, wellbeing apps. A safety net, but don't address the hazard source. | Lowest |
Action plan structure
An effective action plan captures the following for each action. The "contributing factor" column is where focus group analysis connects in - it should describe a specific condition or practice, not just repeat the hazard name.
| Hazard | Contributing factor (from focus groups) | Action | Control level | Owner | Budget ($) | Target date | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Role overload | Task allocation decisions made without visibility of individual workload | Implement team workload visibility board in weekly stand-up | Engineering | Team Lead | Nil | 30 days | - |
| Supervisor support | Managers unsure how to have wellbeing conversations | Deliver 2-hour manager upskilling session | Administrative | P&C Manager | ~$800 | 45 days | - |
| Change consultation | Decisions announced rather than discussed | Pilot team input sessions for next two structural changes | Substitute | GM Operations | Nil | 60 days | - |
Example rows only - replace with your organisation's actions. An anonymised worked example will be added in a future update.
Interventions library
Browse evidence-based controls while you draft actions. Controls are drawn from Australian WHS Codes of Practice and, when a workspace model is loaded, sorted so the hazards most linked to your priority factors appear first. The implementation-difficulty tags give a rough signal of the effort a control implies - useful for populating the "control level" column in the action plan template.
Loading interventions library…
Template download
An action plan template pre-formatted with the fields above, plus a hierarchy of controls reference and 90-day review checklist.
A combined Excel workbook (action plan + focus group notes) is planned for a future update. Your WHS regulator's website has additional templates and jurisdiction-specific guidance.
The 90-day review is included on the final page of the action plan template.