Safety Survey Reports
B-Safe Management Solutions, Inc.
Franklin, IN, 46131, USA
317 - 736 - 8980
www.behavioral-safety.com
Local &
Global
© 1992 – 2012 B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Agenda
•
•
•
•
Survey Background
Survey results – Well Engineering
Survey results – Process Safety
The Way Forward
Local &
Global
© 1992 – 2012 B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Understanding Safety Culture
Safety Culture loosely used to describe
‘the corporate atmosphere or ‘culture’ whereby safety is understood to be, and is accepted as, the
number one priority’ (Lord Cullen (1990), after the Piper Alpha Disaster)
Translates into: The way we approach and improve safety around here
Safety Culture Elements are:
Person Aspect
Action Aspect
Process Aspect
“How People Feel‟
“What People Do‟
“What the Organization Has‟
Individual and group values,
attitudes, and perceptions about
safety.
Safety-related Actions and Behaviors;
Safety Leadership;
Management Commitment To Safety.
Policies, Procedures, Regulation,
Organizational Structures And
Management Systems.
“Hearts & Minds”
“Daily Actions”
“Safety Guidelines”
Local &
Global
© 1992 – 2012 B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Cooper, M.D. (2000). “Towards a Model of Safety Culture”. Safety Science, Vol 32 (6), 111-136.
Safety Culture Survey: 5 Step Approach
• Step 1: Onsite Validation Activities
Conduct behavioral
Observations /
Interviews
Collate Results
• Step 2: Safety Culture Survey Development
Work with PDO to identify
issues
Customize approach to suit
• Step 4: Distribute Survey to Personnel
• Step 4: Write Safety Survey Report
• Step 5: Present Safety Survey Report
Conduct Online
Safety Survey
Analyze Data
Present report
Local &
Global
© 1992 – 2012 B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Safety Culture Assessment Survey Project
• Survey questions based on 20 years academic work
• Survey consistently measures safety culture and is accurate
• Demographics
• Employer, Primary Worksite, Employment Category & Injury Experience
• Staff views on safety practices
• 4 Point Scale – Highly Disagree to Highly Agree
SC Person Element
SC Process Element
SC Action Element
Senior. Mgt. Commitment to Safety
Safety Communications
Housekeeping
Middle Mgt. Commitment to Safety
Safety Procedures
On-the-Job Approach to Safety
Front-line Mgt. Commitment
Emergency Preparedness
Associates Commitment to Safety
Safety Training
On-the-Job Risk
Quality of Welfare Arrangements
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
People’s Risk Rating of
Workplace Hazards
Peoples Involvement in Safety
Activities
Local &
Global
Safety Culture Survey Process
• Safety Culture Survey Reviewed, Revised and
Approved by PDO
• Distribution Methods to Process
 Online link to Translated/ English Survey via Email
 ‘Hard Copy’ Arabic version distributed to sites
• Safety Culture Survey was active for 8 Weeks
• Monitored Completion of Surveys and Sent Reminders
• On-site Validation Process Included:
 Safety Culture Survey Validation Interviews with
PDO personnel
 Onsite Observation of conditions and behaviours
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Local &
Global
Safety Survey Report
•
Comprehensive Written Reports for Well Engineering & Process Safety
• Survey Scores
 Each survey question’s mean average score converted into a percentage
 Percentage scores placed in a ‘Banding’ range based on surveys from past 20 years
 Beginning =0-30%, Developing = 31-60, Performing 61-80%, High Performing =81-90%, and
Excelling = 91-100%.
•
Benchmarked against 5 other industry sectors

•
(Chemicals, Manufacturing, Mining, Oil & Gas, Utilities)
Statistical Analyses

Multiple Regression of all survey topics to Identify PDO’s ‘Safety Culture Predictors’ separately
for Well Engineering & Process Safety
Local &
Global
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Safety Survey Results
Well Engineering
Local &
Global
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Well Engineering Results - Sample Size & Response Rate
• 1,953 responses received from Well Engineering respondents
Employer
Abraj
Al Mansoori
Arabian Drilling
Baker Hughes
BJ
Boots & Coots
Dalma
Daqing Oilfield
Desert Byrne
DJ Towel
FOS
Halliburton
KCA Deutag
MBPS
Midwesco
Midwest
NDSC
PDO
Schlumberger
Sea & Land
Shaleem
Shiv - Vani
SOLTEX
Weatherford
Wood Group ESP
Other
Number of
Respondents
40
22
22
28
0
2
353
2
1
51
46
44
33
437
40
55
16
197
35
146
69
65
15
166
1
57
% of Sample
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
2.05%
1.13%
1.13%
1.43%
0.00%
0.10%
18.07%
0.10%
0.05%
2.61%
2.36%
2.25%
1.69%
22.38%
2.05%
2.82%
0.82%
10.09%
1.79%
7.48%
3.53%
3.33%
0.77%
8.50%
0.05%
2.92%
Worksite
Number of Respondents
% of Sample
Coastal Based
Field Based Rig
Field Based Hoist
Field Based Completion & Well
Intervention -C&WI
Field Based Office/Yard
115
1004
544
5.89%
51.41%
27.85%
156
7.99%
122
6.25%
Field Based Office / Yard
Bahja
Fahud
Harweel
Lekhwair
Marmul
Nimr
Nizwa
Qarn Alam
Other
Number of Respondents
63
166
32
110
138
269
30
144
230
% of Sample
3.23%
8.50%
1.64%
5.63%
7.07%
13.77%
1.54%
7.37%
11.78%
Field Based Office / Yard
Senior Manager
Department Head
Supervisor
Associates
Number of Respondents
48
34
609
1250
% of Sample
2.46%
1.74%
31.18%
64.00%
Field Based Office / Yard
Injured
Non-Injured
Number of Respondents
119
1822
% of Sample
6.09%
93.29%
Local &
Global
Well Engineering Results - Sample Size & Response Rate
Field Based Rig
Rig-01
Rig-04
Rig-10
Rig-11
Rig-21
Rig-26
Rig-33
Rig-36
Rig-37
Rig-38
Rig-43
Rig-44
Rig-45
Rig-46
Rig-47
Rig-48
Rig-49
Rig-50
Rig-52
Rig-53
Rig-54
Rig-58
Rig-59
Rig-72
Rig-78
Rig-79
Rig-81
Rig-82
Rig-83
Rig-84
Rig-86
Rig-87
Rig-88
Rig-92
Rig-94
Other
Number of Respondents
% of Sample
29
31
74
0
0
54
56
4
24
47
2
1
39
27
56
48
23
3
1
29
27
3
14
24
29
36
49
27
27
17
71
33
28
2
53
103
1.48%
1.59%
3.79%
0.00%
0.00%
2.76%
2.87%
0.20%
1.23%
2.41%
0.10%
0.05%
2.00%
1.38%
2.87%
2.46%
1.18%
0.15%
0.05%
1.48%
1.38%
0.15%
0.72%
1.23%
1.48%
1.84%
2.51%
1.38%
1.38%
0.87%
3.64%
1.69%
1.43%
0.10%
2.71%
5.27%
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Field Based Hoists
WPH-01
WPH-02
WPH-03
WPH-04
WPH-05
WPH-08
WPH-11
WPH-12
WPH-13
WPH-14
WPH-16
WPH-18
WPH-20
WPH-21
WPH-22
WPH-25
WPH-27
WPH-28
WPH-31
WPH-32
WPH-33
WPH-34
WPH-35
WPH-36
WPH-40
WPH-41
WPH-43
WPH-44
Other
Number of Respondents
% of Sample
14
12
37
24
18
21
2
21
15
19
25
1
23
27
25
1
20
34
17
31
31
28
16
40
23
2
2
15
145
0.72%
0.61%
1.89%
1.23%
0.92%
1.08%
0.10%
1.08%
0.77%
0.97%
1.28%
0.05%
1.18%
1.38%
1.28%
0.05%
1.02%
1.74%
0.87%
1.59%
1.59%
1.43%
0.82%
2.05%
1.18%
0.10%
0.10%
0.77%
7.42%
Local &
Global
Well Engineering Results - Average Safety Survey Score
PDO Well Engineering
Total Score = 78.85%
Local &
Global
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Results – Average Safety Culture Scores
Location
Average % Survey Score
Well Engineering
Process Safety
78.85 %
80.90 %
Error
Margin
+/- 2%
+/- 4%
Number of
Maturity
Responses
1953
Performing
497
Performing
Local &
Global
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Well Engineering Results – Average Topic Scores
Local &
Global
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
PDO– On-Site Validation
 Validation interviews, discussion, observations
Common Themes Identified




Some very good safety systems in place
Some very good / comprehensive safety information posted on notice boards
Many supervisors / managers have a good reputation regarding safety with their workforce
Some of the best scaffolding standards in the GCC
Local &
Global
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Well Engineering Results – On-Site Validation
 Areas of Opportunity
 Management / Supervision
 Managers say safety is important, but associates say productivity is put before safety to meet
production targets.
 Requests for Coastal-based management and HSE to visit field much more often
 Safety Communications
 Many do not understand the HSE information provided from Muscat.
 Plans requested to explain how to use information to its fullest extent
 Numerous requests for assistance to turn information into practical application onsite
 Inconsistent transfer of information at site level
 Too much focus on minor incidents, not ‘kick’s, etc., that could lead to catastrophic events.
 Safety Training
 Lack of awareness of people’s safety training needs.
 Materials and training are too simplistic
 Continuously repeated Pre-job safety briefs are seen as boring rituals
 Limited time for safety training, with requests for much more than currently provided
 Requests for HSE video library onsite in English & Arabic
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Local &
Global
Well Engineering Results – On-Site Validation
 Safety Procedures
 Too many safety regulations being created
 Confusing safety procedures slow the job down too much. Seems to lead to many people
working over allocated hours. Causing people to ignore them and focus on productivity.
 Noticeable that most people behaving safely, most of the time
 Recognising Safety Performance
 Feeling in field based rigs / hoists that good/excellent safety performance is not being
recognised by corporate
 Night Moves
 Night moves generally thought to be unsafe. Leading to people to work many more hours
than they should
 Welfare
 Requests for annual health checks to test for ‘cocktail’ of chemical/fume exposures
 Noise at rig sites impacting on peoples sleep patterns. Impacting concentration levels during
shifts
 Many stated they experienced diarrhea and/or food poisoning due to poor food quality Local &
Global
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Additional Components Measured
Risk Rating
Aligns with ratings of the ‘Process Element, On-the-Job Risk, and
Focuses on the Actual risks faced
SC Person Element
SC Process Element
SC Action Element
Senior. Mgt. Commitment to Safety
Safety Communications
On-the-Job Approach to Safety
Middle Mgt. Commitment to Safety
Safety Procedures
Housekeeping
Front-line Mgt. Commitment
Emergency Preparedness
Associates Commitment to Safety
Safety Training
On-the-Job Risk
Local &
Global
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Well Engineering Results – Personal Injury Risk Ratings
Workplace Hazards
Storage/stacking of goods/materials
Workplace design & layout problems
Manual handling
Vibration
Use of compressed gas cylinders
Loading / Unloading of vehicles
Contact with hot objects & surfaces
Fire
Total Mean Average
Electrical Hazards
Confined Space
Pinch points & caught between
Explosions from hazardous / flammable gases
Use of hand tools
Working with hazardous chemicals
Slipping and Tripping
Dropped objects
Crane & Forklift Operations
High pressure line/equipment failure
Working at Height
Exposure to H2S
© Noise
1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Number of
responses
(ex 1953)
1558
1639
1733
1605
1585
1525
1656
1743
1915
1749
1690
1757
1625
1762
1653
1861
1803
1737
1652
1734
1755
1836
PDO Mean
Average
Std. Dev.
(Spread)
2.73
2.68
2.56
2.55
2.53
2.51
2.49
2.48
2.42
2.41
2.38
2.31
2.30
2.28
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.23
2.22
2.21
2.19
2.04
.92
.94
.96
.95
.99
.95
.97
1.00
.71
.97
.99
.95
1.07
.99
1.02
.89
.97
.97
.99
1.02
1.02
.93
Risk
Rating
68.3
67.1
63.9
63.7
63.2
62.7
62.3
62.0
60.6
60.3
59.6
57.9
57.4
57.1
56.1
56.2
56.2
55.7
55.6
55.2
54.8
50.9
Maturity
Rating
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Local &
Global
Medium
Medium
Additional Components Measured
Involvement
Aligns with ‘Action Element’, Associates’ On-the-Job Approach to Safety,
indicates the specific activities people have been involved and when
SC Person Element
SC Process Element
SC Action Element
Senior. Mgt. Commitment to Safety
Safety Communications
On-the-Job Approach to Safety
Middle Mgt. Commitment to Safety
Safety Procedures
Housekeeping
Front-line Mgt. Commitment
Emergency Preparedness
Associates Commitment to Safety
Safety Training
On-the-Job Risk
Local &
Global
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Well Engineering Results – Involvement in Safety
Number of
PDO
Involvement In Safety
responses
Mean
(ex 1953)
Average
Seen a safety video
1934
4.18
Tried to prevent a colleague doing something unsafe
1934
4.17
Discussed safety at a crew briefing
1934
4.10
Reported an unsafe practice
1933
4.06
Attended a safety training course
1934
4.00
Took part in an emergency drill
1934
3.97
Took part in a STOP tour or Hazard Hunt
1934
3.86
Selected and trialed PPE
1933
3.75
Took part in a risk assessment/HAS
1934
3.72
Raised a suggestion to improve safety
1934
3.71
Total Mean Average
1934
3.48
Reported a near-miss
1934
3.33
Presented at a safety committee meeting
1934
3.22
Helped review a safety procedure
1934
3.09
Participated in an accident investigation
1934
2.46
Use of Time out for Safety
Jobs are stopped when ‘Time Outs’ are called
1883
2.14
How many times have you called a ‘Time Out’?
1932
1.86
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Std. Dev.
(Spread)
1.07
1.36
1.35
1.39
1.18
1.45
1.55
1.62
1.55
1.49
.90
1.75
1.90
1.78
1.88
.51
1.65
Average Time
since last
involved
6-9 Months
6-9 months
6-9 Months
6-9 Months
6-9 months
9-12 Months
9-12 Months
9-12 Months
9-12 Months
9-12 Months
9-12 Months
9-12 Months
9-12 Months
9-12 Months
12-24 Months
Maturity Rating
Developing
&
BeginningLocal
Global
Additional Components Measured
Welfare Arrangements
Aligns with ‘Person Element’, the Commitment to Safety, and identifies
the welfare arrangements that affects people’s commitment
SC Person Element
SC Process Element
SC Action Element
Senior. Mgt. Commitment to Safety
Safety Communications
On-the-Job Approach to Safety
Middle Mgt. Commitment to Safety
Safety Procedures
Housekeeping
Front-line Mgt. Commitment
Emergency Preparedness
Associates Commitment to Safety
Safety Training
On-the-Job Risk
Local &
Global
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Phase 3: Results – Welfare Arrangements
Welfare Arrangements
Quality of Personal Protective Equipment
(PPE)
Washing of coveralls / work wear
First Aid facilities
Provision of coveralls/ work wear
Total Mean Average
Accommodation facilities
Washing facilities
Toilet facilities
Messing / Refreshment facilities
Recreation facilities
Number of
responses
(ex 2265)
Mean
Average
(Scale 1-5)
Std. Dev.
(Spread)
Average
Rating
1881
3.55
1.24
Adequate
1844
1891
1858
1916
1850
1881
1889
1820
1811
3.50
3.47
3.36
3.22
3.21
3.19
3.10
2.79
2.69
1.17
1.27
1.28
.99
1.32
1.07
1.32
1.35
1.37
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Poor
Poor
Local &
Global
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Correlation Between Survey Scores and Incident Statistics
Hoist Based Rigs
Field Based Rigs
Survey Topics
Correlation
Coefficient
Risk Ratings
Involvement in Safety Ratings
Welfare Ratings
-.026
-.085
.024
Coastal Management’s Commitment to Safety
Senior Site Management’s Commitment to Safety
Supervisor’s Commitment to Safety
Associate’s Commitment to Safety
Safety Communications
Standard Operating Procedures
Emergency Preparation
Safety Training
On-the-Job Risk
Housekeeping
On-the-Job Approach to Safety
-.164
-.227
-.343
-.213
-.251
-.117
-.299
-.273
-.133
-.162
-.309
Significance
P<.10*
or
P< 0.05**
.442
.313
.446
.180
.099*
.023**
.114
.076*
.252
.043**
.047**
.227
.181
.038**
Survey Topics
Correlation
Coefficient
Risk Ratings
Involvement Ratings
Welfare Ratings
-.130
.097
.141
Coastal Management’s Commitment to Safety
Senior Site Management’s Commitment to Safety
Supervisor’s Commitment to Safety
Associate’s Commitment to Safety
Safety Communications
Standard Operating Procedures
Emergency Preparation
Safety Training
On-the-Job Risk
Housekeeping
On-the-Job Approach to Safety
-.130
-.202
-.047
-.143
-.099
-.244
-.214
-.329
-.136
-.320
-.292
Significance
P<.10*
or
P< 0.05*
.250
.309
.233
.251
.146
.404
.233
.304
.101
.133
.041**
.241
.046**
.062*
Local &
Global
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Multiple Regression
A way to identify those survey topics that predict PDO’s future safety
performance to provide focus
Management & Associates
Commitment to Safety
Person Elements
Safety Communications
Emergency Preparation
SOP’s
The few Topics
identified that will
provide most significant
impact if improved
Safety Training
Process Elements
Overall Safety
Culture
Improvement
Action Elements
On-the-Job Risk
On-the-Job Approach
to Safety
Housekeeping
The larger the correlation the larger the influence…
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Local &
Global
Well Engineering Results – Multiple Regression: The Way Forward
Survey Topic
Senior Site Managers Commitment to Safety
Supervisors Commitment to Safety
Coastal Managements Commitment to Safety
Adjusted
R2
76.1
88.8
94.9
% diff (+) F Ratio P<
76.1%
12.7%
6.1%
10741.1 0.000
 Opportunities for Change
 Management’s Commitment to Safety
- Evaluate beliefs and means to demonstrate safety
leadership throughout the organization
Local &
Global
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Phase 4: The Way Forward
There are 5 major Safety Culture areas where progress can be made to propel PDO Well Engineering
into the world-class safety culture range.
 Enhance the safety leadership skills of all managerial levels.
 Fully involve Associates in safety via sound and proven strategies, such as conducting risk
assessments, and developing a comprehensive and adaptive Behavioral Safety process.
 Review the quality of the content, delivery and scope of PDO’s Safety Training courses and their
effectiveness;
 Review the quality, type and number of safety communications to ensure the safety message is
received as intended in the field
 Set a corporate target of 95% of all corrective actions being completed within 30 days of being
reported and track it.
Local &
Global
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
PDO Safety Survey Results
Process Safety
Local &
Global
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Process Safety Results - Sample Size & Response Rate
• 479 responses received by Process Safety respondents
Employer
OSD
Other PDO Directorate
PDO main/sub-contractor - Other PDO contractor
GD
UID
OND
PDO main/sub-contractor - Standalone
Engineering contractor
PDO main/sub-contractor - EMC North
PDO main/sub-contractor - OND North
PDO main/sub-contractor - EMC South
PDO main/sub-contractor - OND South
XD
Employment Category
Senior Manager
Department Head
Supervisor
Associates
Number of
Respondents
212
80
63
47
36
20
% of
Sample
44.26%
16.70%
13.15%
9.81%
7.52%
4.18%
4
0.84%
3
2
1
0
0
0.63%
0.42%
0.21%
0.00%
0.00%
Number of
Respondents
10
48
159
250
% of
Sample
2.09%
10.02%
33.19%
52.19%
Worksite
MaF based - Office based
Interior based - Marmul
Interior based - Amal Steam Project
Interior based - Nimr
Interior based - Other PDO area/station
Interior based - CPP
Interior based - Other PDO project
MaF based - Site based (Workshop, Terminal,
Laboratory, etc.)
Interior based - Fahud
Interior based - Harweel
Interior based - Seismic field work
Injury Experience
Injured
Non-Injured
Number of
Respondents
170
79
63
62
54
22
8
% of
Sample
35.49%
16.49%
13.15%
12.94%
11.27%
4.59%
1.67%
5
1.04%
4
0
0
0.84%
0.00%
0.00%
Number of
Respondents
24
443
% of Sample
5.01%
92.48%
Local &
Global
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Process Safety Results - Average Safety Survey Score
PDO Process Safety
Total Score = 80.9%
Local &
Global
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Results – Average Safety Culture Scores
Location
Average % Survey Score
Process Safety
Well Engineering
80.9
79.5
Error
Margin
+/- 4%
+/- 2%
Number of
Range
Responses
497
Performing
1953
Performing
Local &
Global
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Breakdown of Results
What We Measured to Establish the Level of Safety Culture
SC Person Element
SC Process Element
SC Action Element
Senior. Mgt. Commitment to Safety
Safety Communications
On-the-Job Approach to Safety
Middle Mgt. Commitment to Safety
Safety Procedures
Housekeeping
Front-line Mgt. Commitment
Emergency Preparedness
Associates Commitment to Safety
Safety Training
On-the-Job Risk
Welfare Arrangements
Personal Injury Hazards
Involvement in Safety
Process Safety Hazards
Local &
Global
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Process Safety Results – Average Topic Scores
Local &
Global
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Additional Components Measured
Risk Rating
Aligns with ratings of the ‘Process Element, On-the-Job Risk, and Focuses
on the Actual risks faced
SC Person Element
SC Process Element
SC Action Element
Senior. Mgt. Commitment to Safety
Safety Communications
On-the-Job Approach to Safety
Middle Mgt. Commitment to Safety
Safety Procedures
Housekeeping
Front-line Mgt. Commitment
Emergency Preparedness
Associates Commitment to Safety
Safety Training
On-the-Job Risk
Local &
Global
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Process Safety Results – Personal Injury Risk Ratings
Personal Injury Causing Workplace Hazards
Conducting seismic operations
Storage/stacking of Goods/Materials
Operating and maintaining marine oil facilities
Operating and maintaining air travel facilities
Conditions leading to hand/body vibration
Manual handling of heavy Goods/Materials
Loading/unloading of vehicles
Entanglement & trapping in machinery
Mobile plant operations on site
Inadequate house keeping
Use of hand and power tools
Contact with hot objects & surfaces
Inadequate Hygiene and food poisoning
Workplace design & layout problems
Falling objects
Compressed air hazards
Total Mean Average
Use of compressed gas cylinders
Lifting operations
Actions leading to Repetitive Strain Injury
Fire potential of combustible/flammable materials
Working with hazardous chemicals
Working at height
Slipping and Tripping
Work in situations leading to ergonomic issues
Electrical Hazards
Exposure to environmental hazards (heat, scorpions, etc.)
Explosions from hazardous/flammable gases
Noise
Contact with process fluids (H2S, oil etc.)
Stress (work pressure, emotional stress, etc.)
Road Transport.
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
# of Responses
(ex 479)
203
347
183
205
352
339
326
350
309
437
364
370
408
443
439
350
463
321
345
427
385
347
351
453
404
436
395
370
415
365
451
439
PDO Mean
Average
3.11
3.05
3.00
2.97
2.96
2.96
2.88
2.86
2.84
2.81
2.81
2.80
2.80
2.78
2.78
2.77
2.76
2.75
2.73
2.68
2.65
2.65
2.63
2.62
2.61
2.61
2.59
2.57
2.55
2.38
2.16
2.14
Std. Dev.
(Spread)
0.87
0.78
0.98
0.96
0.89
0.84
0.91
0.93
0.92
0.79
0.91
0.88
0.84
0.80
0.87
0.96
0.64
1.00
0.92
0.84
0.91
1.01
1.01
0.83
0.86
0.95
0.87
1.02
0.91
0.99
0.81
0.91
Risk Rating
Low
Low
Low
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Local &
Global
Medium
Medium
Additional Components Measured
Process Risk Ratings
Aligns with ratings of the ‘Process Element, On-the-Job Risk, and
Focuses on the Actual risks faced
SC Person Element
SC Process Element
SC Action Element
Senior. Mgt. Commitment to Safety
Safety Communications
On-the-Job Approach to Safety
Middle Mgt. Commitment to Safety
Safety Procedures
Housekeeping
Front-line Mgt. Commitment
Emergency Preparedness
Associates Commitment to Safety
Safety Training
On-the-Job Risk
Local &
Global
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Phase 3: Results – Process Hazard Risk Ratings
Asset Damage Hazards
Mobile plant operations
Frequent alarm patterns
Compressed air hazards
Contact with hot objects & surfaces
Total Mean Average
Use of compressed gas cylinders
Not complying with preventative maintenance plans
During plant shutting down and starting up
Electrical Hazards
Over-rides
Process fluids spills and leaks
Release of process fluids
Not complying to PtW requirements where applicable
Fire potential of combustible/flammable gases
Not conducting isolation where applicable
Corrosion of pipeline and equipment
Not conducting gas test where applicable
Explosions from hazardous/flammable gases
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
# of
responses
(ex 479)
306
347
349
353
403
343
347
336
378
336
345
331
352
364
341
340
333
348
PDO Mean Std. Dev.
Average (Spread)
2.57
2.54
2.46
2.44
2.41
2.40
2.34
2.32
2.29
2.22
2.20
2.18
2.18
2.16
2.15
2.12
2.12
2.08
.93
.90
.94
.88
.83
.98
.93
.89
.99
.98
.90
.97
1.04
.98
1.08
.95
1.04
1.03
Risk Rating
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Local &
Medium
Global
Potential Process Safety Indicators
Indicator Type
Potential Process Safety Indicators
Indicator Status
Asset Integrity
Performance Driver
Frequent alarm patterns
Performance Driver
Identifying Potential Compressed air hazards
Performance Driver
Identifying Potential Electrical Hazards
Performance Driver
Identifying Corrosion of pipeline and equipment
Outcome
Contact with hot objects & surfaces
Outcome
Leaks (i.e. Fire potential) of combustible/flammable gases
Outcome
Process fluids spills and leaks
Outcome
Release of process fluids
Outcome
Explosions from hazardous/flammable gases
Operator Competency
Performance Driver
Correct Use of compressed gas cylinders (behaviors)
Performance Driver
Mobile plant operations (Behaviors)
Outcome
Plant shut down and start up failures
Outcome
Over-rides
Safety Management Activities (Behaviors)
Performance Driver
Complying with preventative maintenance plans
Performance Driver
Complying to PtW requirements where applicable
Performance Driver
Conducting isolation where applicable
Performance Driver
Conducting gas test where applicable
Leading
Leading
Leading
Leading
Lagging
Leading
Lagging
Lagging
Lagging
Leading
Leading
Lagging
Lagging
Leading
Leading
Leading
Leading
Local &
Global
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Additional Components Measured
Involvement
Aligns with ‘Action Element’, Associates’ On-the-Job Approach to Safety,
indicates the specific activities people have been involved and when
SC Person Element
SC Process Element
SC Action Element
Senior. Mgt. Commitment to Safety
Safety Communications
On-the-Job Approach to Safety
Middle Mgt. Commitment to Safety
Safety Procedures
Housekeeping
Front-line Mgt. Commitment
Emergency Preparedness
Associates Commitment to Safety
Safety Training
On-the-Job Risk
Local &
Global
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Phase 3: Results – Process Safety - Involvement in Safety
Number of
Involvement In Safety
responses
(ex 479)
Seen a safety video
443
Tried to prevent a colleague doing something unsafe
442
Attended a safety training course
443
Discussed safety at a crew briefing
440
Reported an unsafe practice
442
Took part in a STOP tour or Hazard Hunt
441
Raised a suggestion to improve safety
441
Total Mean Average
443
Took part in an emergency drill
441
Took part in a risk assessment/HAS
441
Presented at a safety committee meeting
441
Selected and trialed Personal Protective Equipment
440
Reported a near-miss
441
Helped review a safety procedure
441
Participated in an accident investigation
442
Use of Time out for Safety
Jobs are stopped when “Time Outs” are called
437
How many times have you called a “Time-Out”?
438
PDO Mean
Average
Std. Dev.
(Spread)
Average Time
since last involved
4.30
3.84
3.79
3.59
3.43
3.14
3.13
2.85
2.80
2.77
2.39
2.34
2.28
2.10
1.55
1.22
1.66
1.37
1.88
1.93
2.02
1.90
1.11
1.98
2.03
2.12
2.09
1.95
2.03
1.82
2.40
1.69
.89
1.81
6-9 months
9-12 Months
9-12 Months
9-12 Months
9-12 Months
9-12 Months
9-12 Months
9-24 Months
12-24 Months
12-24 Months
12-24 Months
12-24 Months
12-24 Months
12-24 Months
More than 2 years
Maturity Rating
Developing
Beginning
Local &
Global
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Additional Components Measured
Welfare Arrangements
Aligns with ‘Person Element’, the Commitment to Safety, and identifies
the welfare arrangements that affects people’s commitment
SC Person Element
SC Process Element
SC Action Element
Senior. Mgt. Commitment to Safety
Safety Communications
On-the-Job Approach to Safety
Middle Mgt. Commitment to Safety
Safety Procedures
Housekeeping
Front-line Mgt. Commitment
Emergency Preparedness
Associates Commitment to Safety
Safety Training
On-the-Job Risk
Local &
Global
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Process Safety Results – Welfare Arrangements
Welfare Arrangements
First Aid facilities
Quality of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
Accommodation facilities
Total Mean Average
Provision of coveralls/ work wear
Washing facilities
Toilet facilities
Washing of coveralls / work wear
Recreation facilities
Messing / Refreshment facilities
Number of
responses
(ex 479)
413
395
374
423
383
385
419
335
391
387
Mean
Std. Dev. Average
Average
(Spread)
Rating
(Scale 1-5)
3.56
.94
Adequate
3.54
.99
Adequate
3.45
.98
Adequate
3.41
.76
Adequate
3.40
1.07
Adequate
3.39
.98
Adequate
3.39
.96
Adequate
3.33
1.01
Adequate
3.27
1.02
Adequate
3.25
1.01
Adequate
Local &
Global
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Process Safety Results – Multiple Regression: The Way Forward
Adjusted
R2
Survey Topic
Senior Site Managers Commitment to Safety
‘On-the-Job’ Approach to Safety
Emergency Preparedness
Housekeeping
.537
.744
.834
.885
% diff (+) F Ratio P<
53.73
20.66
8.98
5.10
574.18
.000
 Opportunities for Change




Sr. Mgmt. Commitment to Safety
‘On-the-Job’ Approach to Safety
Emergency Preparedness
Housekeeping
-
Evaluate beliefs and means to demonstrate
Need to reduce the number of ‘At-Risk’ behaviors
Evaluate plans and awareness of workforce
Need to review effectiveness and time spent
Local &
Global
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Phase 4: The Way Forward
There are 6 major Safety Culture areas where progress can be made to propel PDO Process Safety
into the world-class safety culture range.
 Enhance the safety leadership skills of all managerial levels.
 Review the current risk assessments with the job holders, and identify gaps to help put any
appropriate risk controls in place.
 Address the inherent Asset Damaging Process Safety risks and consider, If not already done,
examining incident databases by those Process Safety risks that fall under Asset Integrity,
Operator Competency and Safety Management activities to identify which type of process
safety risk is most prevalent in PDO;
 Fully involve Associates in safety via sound and proven strategies, such as conducting risk
assessments, and developing a comprehensive and adaptive Behavioral Safety process.
 Review the effectiveness of the Emergency Preparedness .
 Review ways of improving and maintaining housekeeping
 Set a corporate target of 95% of all corrective actions being completed within 30 days of being
Local &
reported and track it.
Global
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.
Questions / Comments?
Local &
Global
© 1992 - 2012 : B-Safe Management Solutions Inc. Franklin, IN, USA. All Rights Reserved.