We all want a safe workplace.
Traditionally, the development of Health, Safety and Environmental Management Systems (HSEMS) has concentrated on the facilities, equipment choices, and the management systems themselves. Although recognised as a part of overall risk, causes associated with particular types of human error have been difficult to address.
We are now working to company management and HSE professionals to understand how the HSEMS can incorporate human factor issues.
‘Human factors’ describes the interaction of individuals with each other, with facilities and equipment and with management systems. Both the working environment and workplace culture influence human factors. What may be a good system of work in one part of an organisation may be less than ideal in a region where culturally driven attitudes to risk-taking may differ.
Human factors analysis focuses on how these interactions help to make a workplace safer.
Over the past two decades, our industry has succeeded in reducing incident frequency by adopting improved engineering solutions and sophisticated safety management systems.
However, safety performance has reached a plateau in many companies: despite all the effort and money spent, there is little improvement between one year’s performance and the next.
Progress will come by taking better and more explicit account of the way people interact with every aspect of the workplace; in other words, incorporation of Human Factors.
We need to consider how individuals interact with each other, facilities, equipment, and management systems. All of this, in turn, is within the context of the local culture and environment.
Although IOGP is focusing on improving HSE performance, incorporating human factors into an HSE plan can also yield operational benefits. These can include:
We aim to raise the awareness of the significance of Human Factors in achieving improved HSE performance. The following basic information will help to determine when and how to factor this fundamental component into HSE activities.
Even with the implementation of engineering controls and HSE management systems, our industry is still searching for ways to improve performance. Some E&P companies are implementing tools and technologies from other industries to improve efficiency, productivity, and minimize errors in the workplace.
A survey of our members revealed that the top ten human factor issues involve systems, people, and culture. Less critical were facilities and equipment issues. This reflects the industry interest to balance systems and engineering controls with people interface issues.
Would HSE performance improve if your organization considered Human Factors?
One way to determine whether to address Human Factor issues directly is by assessing the HSE culture of your organization.
Alternatively, benchmarking the performance of your organization against others can indicate where there is room for improvement.
Incident investigations also provide another good source of data. Properly performed, they can give clear insight into potential problem areas related to Human factors. Similarly, diagnosing known problem areas provides valuable information for directing future improvements.
Management’s leadership and commitment largely determines HSE culture. Change for the better will not happen without these factors (see case study Developing a leader accountabilities agreement).
Culture has a major impact on personal HSE behaviours.
The simplest way to evaluate your organization’s HSE culture is to discuss it with both management and workforce. Gauge their perceptions by using a recognized tool such as the five step HSE Culture Ladder.
The HSE Culture Ladder allows an organization (or a part of an organization) to determine where it sits on a scale of improving HSE culture.
One extreme (pathological) displays a failure and lack of willingness to recognize and/or address those issues which may result in poor safety performance.
At the other extreme (generative) the culture views safe working practices as a necessary and desirable part of any operation.
You can find descriptions of 20 critical HSE elements and the definitions of actions and behaviours at each level on the IOGP Human Factors website (http://info.ogp.org.uk/hf).
The challenge for each organization is to recognize its own safety culture and identify how it may be improved.
Surveying the workforce is an effective way to gather the data needed for assessment. Consider using one of the many organizations accustomed to undertaking this complex research to assist in conducting the effort.
There are two videos available on this subject - Safety Ladder Culture - What is an HSE culture? and Generative Organisations - both videos are zipped Flash .exe files.
Culture can be defined as shared values (what is important) and beliefs (how things work) which interact within an organization's structure and control systems to produce behavioural norms (the way we do things around here).
Uttal, B. (1983), The corporate culture vultures, Fortune Magazine, 17th October.
A particular challenge for E&P companies is assuring compatibility of their company culture with those of their contractors and subcontractors. This is particularly the case in instances where there is not a long-term business relationship. The relationships that work best are those that foster strong, compatible cultures.
Several techniques can indicate potential Human Factors related problems. These vary from specific surveys - such as procedure violations, ergonomic problems, stress reviews - to more general surveys covering a number of issues. Some surveys will lead to improvement actions. Others confine themselves to diagnosis.
Survey tools provide a good way to identify potential areas for improvement, particularly for organizations in which there is little feedback from incidents. However, they are not in themselves immediate solutions for addressing change.
Benchmarking HSE performance can provide valuable insights. This type of benchmarking can be done at the local level by comparing one installation with another. At a higher level, an organization may compare its overall HSE performance with that of others.
There are many different types of benchmarking exercises. Safety performance data presented in the IOGP report Safety Performance of the Global E&P Industry is an example of an industry-wide benchmarking exercise. At a more detailed level, you can compare the performance of individual organisations on specific tasks.
Analysing the root causes of incidents (and near misses) provides a unique opportunity to gain an important insight into safety culture and identify possible problem areas.
Incident analyses generally establish the sequence of events and the primary causes. For example, the outcome of an incident investigation may be '…the incident resulted from a worker failing to secure the drill pipe in accordance with company policy'.
Your ‘solution’ may be to improve the quality of supervision for this particular type of operation. However, considering Human Factors, you may learn more by determining why the worker failed to recognize, or chose to ignore, the risk at hand. For example, is there a local company culture, which promotes task completion ahead of operational safety?
A range of tools can help in structuring incident investigations to ensure that root causes are uncovered. Examples of incident investigations include TapRooT®, Tripod Beta®, Why Tree Analysis, SCAT, etc.
Well run organizations can operate for many years without a major incident. That is why it is essential to share the learnings from each incident analysis as widely as possible.
When people, culture, working environment, management systems and facilities/equipment are managed effectively together, improvements in HSE performance occur. The steps to improvement are no different from those employed within any change management system.
It is important to take account of the Human Factor issues associated with implementing any change. Two issues of particular importance are management leadership and readiness for change.
Those individuals with key responsibilities for implementing any change should receive training in human factor fundamentals and tools.
Both the management and workforce must recognize and accept the implications of implementing a new system of work.
There is no use telling a worker to spend more time assessing the risks associated with a particular task if the management does not make more time available, and the worker does not recognize the benefits that should result.
Before implementing a human factors change initiative, it is important to determine the organization's readiness for change.
In general, there are five stages: pre-contemplative, contemplative, preparation, action & maintenance.
Associated with each stage are certain actions that are essential to secure the proposed change. For example, if an organization falls into the pre-contemplative category, then the strategy for change must include raising awareness of the need and benefits, which will result from the change.
Avoid initiative overload, the perception that too much is happening too soon. A key to success is “integrating” Human Factors into existing systems and processes, not trying to work it as a stand-alone independent effort.
Provide appropriate communication and training to the parties who will be implementing, and affected by, the change.
We don't see a problem
We are aware of the problem but don't know how to solve it
We have a plan to improve
We are working to improve
We have achieved improvement and are holding on to it.
An Offshore Production Operation Management Team addressed the question 'How can we improve and raise our HSE performance to the next level?'
They determined that management commitment and leadership was the primary driver, generating employee involvement with shared responsibility based on open and honest communication. The result: HSE as an integral part of day-to-day business.
To accomplish this there were a number of programme and organizational changes. These included:
The owners of a large-scale onshore and offshore development agreed to incorporate Human Factors engineering (HFE) into the base design and philosophy of a new operation.
With senior management endorsement, HFE professionals helped to produce a Human Factors programme based on seven key principles.
With the approval of an 'HFE champion', project staff were issued work instructions outlining HFE expectations. Technical staff training started immediately. HFE professionals were included as part of the engineering team.
Component rearrangements (relocation of heat exchangers, orientation and elevation of large valve components, deluge pipe simplification) comprised the majority of HFE changes. Because these rearrangements were incorporated early in the design process, their cost was minimal.
Human factors also influenced procedures development, training, labeling and signage to enable efficient and effective training.
The HFE programme introduced a number of standardized designs for the project, including a ladder design specifically covered by one of the HFE guides.
Project HFE costs reflect personnel charges only. HFE driven design changes were considered design development. The original estimated cost for the HFE programme was 0.07 percent of the facilities budget. The actual HFE cost for this project was approximately half of the estimate.
A drilling organization developed a plan to promote leadership visibility, individual accountability, and highly visible actions to improve HSE performance. This was in conjunction with roll out of a HSE Management System and specially focused contractor safety initiative.
The drilling vice president clearly communicated the emphasis on safety and that managing safety is no different from managing any other performance variable. He consistently asked about HSE within the normal course of business discussions with his team leaders. A team leader was designated as the safety champion to ensure proper data collection and analysis, to discuss HSE issues during team leader meetings, and to supervise a group of HSE professionals.
The drilling vice president established safety goals to halve incidents in the first year and to achieve/maintain top quartile performance. The HSE management system spelled out roles and responsibilities for team leaders and rig supervisors, and performance reviews based on these expectations. Safety metrics were included in incentive programmes throughout the organisation.
Team leaders were required to report all lost time incidents to the drilling vice president. Rig supervisors, translators or specialised training were allocated to ensure work was performed safely. Common management actions included returning bids because of unacceptable safety performance on prior job, hosting an interactive safety forum for contractors with involvement by management, and suspending drilling operations when a rig experienced a high level of recordable incidents.
To define leadership accountabilities better within an E&P technology department, a four-member team developed an ‘Accountabilities Agreement’. The multi-functional team reviewed existing company policies/procedures and regulatory requirements and compiled all leadership accountabilities on one page. The safety and health committee reviewed and approved the document.
The team then developed an implementation programme for team leaders. They developed a manual with excerpts from company policies, procedures, HSE manuals and communications to support or provide additional information on the leadership accountabilities. Team leaders attended a training session sponsored by the company leader and each team leader signed an agreement. Each leader’s performance review incorporated the accountabilities with a specific objective related to their operations
Patrick Hudson & Dianne Parker, Leiden and Manchester Universities
One of the group exercises undertaken at the IOGP safety workshop in March 2000 generated a lot of interest from IOGP members. The exercise built on a process begun in 1999 to develop a useable measure of an organization's safety culture. Westrum's (1985) three stages of organizational culture provided a framework and were extended to five levels:
Progress through these five stages shows increasing sophistication. The exercise reported here involved collecting the consensus views of what constitute these levels. This was done through interviews with top managers with responsibility for safety, and HSE professionals, in a number of the IOGP member companies. The aim was to produce a set of definitions of organizational behaviour.
The exercise did not involve the sharing of company-specific information and did not therefore include disclosure or discussion of confidential or sensitive company matters.
IOGP Report No. 510, Download here
HSE books, HSG48, ISBN 0717624528. http://www.hsebooks.co.uk
Provides information to assist personnel with H&S responsibilities to understand and incorporate Human Factors into the workplace.
Step Change Publication, http://step.steel-sci.org.
Focuses on safety and behavioural issues and illustrates the organisation factors required to manage safety effectively.
HSE Books, ISBN 0717618188. http://www.hsebooks.co.uk
Covers maintenance risks, human performance in maintenance, assessment methods, maintenance management issues, and includes worksheets.
References and links on items to improve safety performance, awareness and behaviours in UK oil & gas industry.
The Hearts and Minds safety programme was developed by Shell Exploration & Production in 2002, based on research with leading universities since 1986, and is being successfully applied in Royal Dutch/Shell Group (Shell) companies around the world. The programme uses a range of tools and techniques to help the organisation involve all staff in managing Health, Safety and Environment as an integral part of their business. Collectively, these tools and techniques are known as the Hearts and Minds Toolkit.
Development & validation of the HMRI safety culture inspection toolkit.
Prepared by Human Engineering for the Health & Safety Executive 2005 - Research Report 365
Learn how to implement land transport safety elements in a management system