PDO to as­sist en­ergy in­no­va­tors

Oil and Gas - - CONTENT -

Ahead of the 2018 Op­er­a­tional Ex­cel­lence in En­ergy, Chem­i­cals & Re­sources Sum­mit (Oc­to­ber 2 to 4

Oc­to­ber, Lon­don, UK), OGR’s me­dia part­ners at IQPC in­ter­viewed Diane Chad­wick-Jones to get her in­sights on the key man­age­ment hur­dles that pre­vent im­prove­ment in high-risk or­gan­i­sa­tions and how training, effective change man­age­ment and build­ing in­ter­nal col­lab­o­ra­tion can cre­ate a sus­tain­able op­er­a­tional ex­cel­lence cul­ture.

DIANE, TELL US A LIT­TLE ABOUT YOUR PRO­FES­SIONAL BACK­GROUND.

I’m the direc­tor of lead­er­ship and cul­ture for BP within the Safety and Op­er­a­tional Risk team. I joined BP af­ter grad­u­at­ing from Im­pe­rial Col­lege, Lon­don and be­gun on the gen­eral grad­u­ate trainee scheme.

I had a num­ber of jobs within BP op­er­a­tions in­clud­ing pro­duc­tion plan­ning at a re­fin­ery and within drilling pro­grams in Brazil. I had gained a wealth of ex­pe­ri­ence in op­er­a­tions be­fore join­ing the safety depart­ment in 2005 to work on Six Sigma pro­jects, and from this I be­came in­volved in safety cul­ture.

WHAT IN­FLU­ENCED YOUR IN­TER­EST IN SAFETY WITHIN OP­ER­A­TIONS?

Look­ing at the con­cept of de­fect elim­i­na­tion is the source of it. Whilst I was in op­er­a­tions there were com­pli­cated is­sues that were quite dif­fi­cult to re­solve. Mov­ing into the safety depart­ment gave me an­other way to look at the com­plex­ity and un­der­ly­ing con­di­tions that may have con­trib­uted to those is­sues. When I moved into look­ing at the be­havioural side, I could see that in the same way we have op­er­a­tional is­sues with many in­ter­act­ing un­der­ly­ing fac­tors, the be­hav­iours of the work­force are in­flu­enced by many fac­tors within the work­place en­vi­ron­ment. To give a generic ex­am­ple, a per­son

may not fol­low a pro­ce­dure cor­rectly, not be­cause they don’t want to, but be­cause a pro­ce­dure may be un­clear, or be­cause the plan is not quite right for the job. It is this that I’ve been work­ing on for the past few years – the be­havioural and cul­tural side of safety. It starts with lead­er­ship set­ting the

ex­pec­ta­tions and re­sources, and when it comes to pro­ce­dures there can be two paths – to say “fol­low the rules or there will be con­se­quences”; or to say “fol­low the rules and if for any rea­son you can’t, speak up and we’ll see how we can fix this”.

When things don’t go to plan, help­ing lead­ers to un­der­stand the prob­lem with­out fo­cus­ing too much on the in­di­vid­ual is key. It’s about look­ing deeper as to why things go wrong. Com­pa­nies have an­a­lyzed in­ci­dent in­ves­ti­ga­tions or used the “Just Cul­ture” process to see what pro­por­tion of the time peo­ple in­ten­tion­ally dis­re­garded the rules, and typ­i­cally is it very small.

Usu­ally the sys­tem or the process has uniden­ti­fied er­ror traps in de­sign that in real life con­di­tions could catch users out. Peo­ple come to work to do their best, so we need to ask our­selves as lead­ers what we can do to im­prove the sys­tems or pro­cesses to help pre­vent mis­takes.

YOU’VE WORKED WITHIN VAR­I­OUS BP FUNC­TIONS, TELL US ABOUT SOME OF THE SAFETY INI­TIA­TIVES THAT YOU’VE HELPED IM­PLE­MENT?

Over the years I’ve worked on var­i­ous safety cul­ture as­sess­ment and im­prove­ment pro­grams and I’ve found that it only takes an or­gan­i­sa­tion so far to look at safety cul­ture on a site-by-site ba­sis. Com­pa­nies need to have safety as a core value that is role-mod­elled by the se­nior lead­er­ship, com­mu­ni­cat­ing that it is pos­si­ble to have an in­ci­dent free work­place and to make de­ci­sions through the lens of safety.

What is seen in many stud­ies across in­dus­tries is that the places that have best im­ple­mented those kind of val­ues, or the way that lead­ers talk and the way that lead­ers pri­or­i­tize safety, are the places with the high­est work­force en­gage­ment. These places are not only some of the safest but the most pro­duc­tive also.

YOUR SES­SION AT THE 2017 OP­ER­A­TIONAL EX­CEL­LENCE SUM­MIT WAS ON BUILD­ING IN­TER­NAL CON­NEC­TIV­ITY AND COL­LAB­O­RA­TION, CAN YOU EX­PAND ON THAT AND EX­PLAIN WHAT ROLE OR­GAN­I­SA­TIONAL TRANS­FOR­MA­TION PLAYS IN OE?

A key first step in build­ing bet­ter in­ter­nal col­lab­o­ra­tion on en­hanc­ing safety man­age­ment is to em­bed a deeper un­der­stand­ing on the mod­ern view of in­ci­dent cau­sa­tion in the lead­er­ship and then through­out the or­gan­i­sa­tion. There is pop­u­lar be­lief that in­ci­dents are caused by hu­man fail­ure. How­ever, when we ask why the hu­man fail­ure oc­curred we of­ten re­al­ize that there are or­gan­i­sa­tional fac­tors be­hind it.

These two views have a big im­pact on how lead­ers re­act to in­ci­dents and how well or­gan­i­sa­tions learn. The lat­ter view is more likely to demon­strate care and lead to a speak-up cul­ture. This type of or­gan­i­sa­tional trans­for­ma­tion means that ca­pa­bil­ity de­vel­op­ment ini­tia­tives need to be em­ployed such as en­gage­ment work­shops and for­mal and in­for­mal training. This in­cludes role-mod­el­ling from lead­ers, not as­sum­ing hu­man er­ror, and look­ing for any con­trib­u­tory un­der­ly­ing is­sues.

The GE Baker Hughes “What Lies Be­neath” work­shops are a good ex­am­ple – and in those ses­sions a key mes­sage is that when some­thing goes wrong, in­stead of ask­ing ‘who is at fault here?”, say, ‘it must have been a re­ally dif­fi­cult sit­u­a­tion be­cause we em­ploy great peo­ple who are try­ing to do the right thing’. In terms of sys­tems and pro­cesses, there are ad­just­ments to be made to iden­tify sys­tem vul­ner­a­bil­i­ties through up­dat­ing com­mon pro­cesses like in­ci­dent in­ves­ti­ga­tion, “Just Cul­ture”, self-ver­i­fi­ca­tion, be­havioural-based safety and as­sur­ance. What’s the best way to se­cure ex­ec­u­tive buy-in for im­ple­ment­ing changes in lead­er­ship think­ing? A good way to do that is to use data to show the value of a clear tone from the top about build­ing trust and show­ing care.

There are many pub­lished stud­ies across in­dus­tries that sup­port this mod­ern un­der­stand­ing of in­ci­dent cau­sa­tion. Com­pa­nies that have con­ducted an­nual peo­ple sur­veys can use their own data to show that, gen­er­ally speak­ing, there is of­ten a cor­re­la­tion be­tween in­ci­dent lev­els and the health of an or­gan­i­sa­tion’s speak-up cul­ture, lead­er­ship lis­ten­ing and or­gan­i­sa­tional trust. How do we cre­ate a sus­tain­able op­er­a­tional ex­cel­lence cul­ture? A key lever is rec­og­niz­ing peo­ple for strong safety lead­er­ship be­hav­iours, be­cause this helps to em­bed the un­der­stand­ing that safety is about the pres­ence of safety in­puts, like look­ing for risks and learn­ing from near misses, and work­ing to iden­tify and elim­i­nate sys­tem-re­lated weak­nesses.

We know that peo­ple are the so­lu­tion, not the prob­lem - it’s just an il­lu­sion that peo­ple are the main cause of in­ci­dents. The last per­son to touch the equip­ment when some­thing goes wrong is very of­ten only the last com­po­nent in a chain of weak­nesses – so recog­nis­ing peo­ple for speak­ing up and look­ing out for each other clearly sets the ex­pec­ta­tion in the or­gan­i­sa­tion that we want to know about those dif­fi­cult-to-see risks, and re­solve them. (Diane Chad­wick-Jones is Direc­tor of Lead­er­ship and Cul­ture for BP. Diane has an ex­ten­sive ca­reer in BP span­ning a num­ber of busi­nesses and func­tions in­clud­ing Re­fin­ing, Ex­plo­ration, Pro­duc­tion and Chem­i­cals. As the BP global sub­ject mat­ter ex­pert in safety cul­ture and safety lead­er­ship, she in­forms the strat­egy and ac­tiv­i­ties in this area. She is an ex­pert prac­ti­tioner in Six Sigma and con­tin­u­ous im­prove­ment method­ol­ogy)

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Oman

© PressReader. All rights reserved.