Session 8: Optimising staffing arrangements Helen Conlin E-mail: conlinh@rpsgroup.com Telephone: +44 (0) 1925 847907 EPSC Human Factors in Process Safety Conference, Schipol, The Netherlands, 5th & 6th October 2006 Programme • • • • • • • • • Introduction What is meant by staffing arrangements? How do staffing arrangements contribute to process safety? How can I optimise staffing arrangements? Group exercise Group discussion Questions Accessing tools & techniques Close Definition of staffing arrangements • Focus today on operational staffing arrangements – – – – – – Arrangements designed for safe process operation People (incl. support functions) Line management Hardware Control systems Administrative controls (procedures, support systems, management systems) • Wider organisation design also important for process safety Contribution to process safety • Texaco Milford Haven Refinery (1994) • • • • Alarm overload Lack of overview Poor design of process status monitoring tools Lack of MAH preparedness • Esso Longford Gas Plant (1998) • • • • • Deficient competence assurance process Alarm overload Lack of structure for shift changeover Poorly designed plant status monitoring tools Lack of MAH preparedness within operations How to optimise • What influences safe performance of staffing arrangements? • Feasibility of staffing arrangements reliably performing timely detection, diagnosis & recovery is a fundamental requirement for safe operation • To assess the feasibility & reliability: – Need to test arrangements against potential MAH scenarios – Need to benchmark performance influencing factors Method for assessing staffing arrangements • In 2000, UK HSE funded research to develop a method, output is reported within the Contract Research Report 348/2001, • There was high industry involvement throughout the research • The method has been applied by many dutyholders within the UK & internationally • The method has been applied with & without consultant involvement • In 2004, the Energy Institute published a User Guide to the method Method overview To test arrangements against potential MAH scenarios • Physical assessment – Principles of safe operation – Decision trees (yes/no) To benchmark performance influencing factors • Ladder assessment – Anchored rating scales (related to Capability Maturity Models) – Preparatory questions and ladder position Output from a study • Physical assessment is a pass or fail of the principles • Ladder assessment benchmarks the arrangements against best practice • Identification of areas to strengthen (prioritised) – Note: Rarely is this as simple as increasing numbers • KPIs • Increased ownership & understanding • When applied within MOC it defines the potential implications of the proposed change Example application overview • Assessing the implications of a proposed combined organisational & technological change at a large refinery • Baseline assessment of existing arrangements • Assessment of future arrangements • Findings, identification of areas requiring strengthening: – In existing arrangements – For specific scenarios – In proposed future arrangements • Definition of KPIs to monitor, before, during & after change • Stakeholder collaborative involvement in change process • Improved MAH organisational performance What was assessed? Refinery, changes involved: • CR move (from local to remote) • Roles & responsibilities change – Process units & Utilities – CR & Field • Changes to delivery of Supervision • Technology changes – – – – Control system incl. alarms Communications CR layout Control system back-up arrangements How was it assessed? • Multi-functional assessment team (composition changed during the study) – Operations (CR & Field technicians, Supervisors, Management) – Future arrangements project team members – Technical specialists (incl. C&I, HR, Occ. Health, HSE) • Representative set of MAH scenarios for affected plant areas • Application of physical & ladder assessment • Additional workload assessment of ESD field tasks (walkthrough) What were the findings? • • • • One change was assessed as being unacceptable Remainder were assessed as acceptable given implementation of recommendations Recommended order and transition stages for change implementation KPIs to monitor factors assessed as likely to be affected by the change – e.g. number of 12 hr shifts worked (normal was 8hrs) as a KPI for Alertness & Fatigue • Weaknesses in existing arrangements identified – e.g. competence assurance • Weaknesses in preparedness for particular MAH scenarios – e.g. cooling water failure Benefits? • Provided a framework for change implementation • Greatly increased & improved ownership & support for changes from operational staff – Particularly as the most unpopular change was dropped based on the assessment findings • Five years after the assessment most of the assessed changes have been implemented successfully • & so have the majority of recommendations Industry perspective Don Harrison, Responsible Care, Quality & Training Manager, BASF Plc., Seal Sands Group exercise (1) 20mins • Form smaller groups of 2 or 3 • Within your small group of 2 or 3, agree to use one set of process operations staffing arrangements from an area that one of you knows well • Apply the PA to one scenario (power loss at 4am on a Sunday) • Define the arrangements • Define detection, diagnosis & recovery activities • Use the guidance provided & work through the 8 decision trees • Summarise the physical assessment output Group exercise (2) 10 mins Still in your small groups • For the same staffing arrangements assess them against the situational awareness ladder using the guidance provided (not scenario specific) Group discussion (10 mins) Within your large table based groups • Discuss: – – – – The topic of staffing arrangements The method presented Experience in assessing/optimising staffing arrangements Experience in managing changes in staffing arrangements Questions? • On the workshop content • Group exercise • Coming out of your group discussion Accessing tools & techniques • Conference CD has all workshop materials on plus remaining ladders and all preparatory questions • HSE website for CRR: www.hse.gov.uk/research/crr_pdf/2001/crr01348.pdf • Energy Institute website for EI User Guide: www.energyinst.org.uk/humanfactors/staffing/