MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4232835430 · doi:10.2523/86655-ms

Evaluation Of Contractor HSE Performance Based On Lagging Indicators: Is There A Better Way?

2004· article· en· W4232835430 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Knode Tom, Cook Pat

Notice bibliographique

RevueProceedings of SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production · 2004
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueOil and Gas Production Techniques
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLaggingCitationComputer scienceExhibitionPerformance indicatorBusinessEngineeringLibrary scienceMarketingMedicineGeography

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Evaluation Of Contractor HSE Performance Based On Lagging Indicators: Is There A Better Way? Tom Knode; Tom Knode Halliburton Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Pat Cook Pat Cook Halliburton Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, March 2004. Paper Number: SPE-86655-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/86655-MS Published: March 29 2004 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Knode, Tom, and Pat Cook. "Evaluation Of Contractor HSE Performance Based On Lagging Indicators: Is There A Better Way?." Paper presented at the SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, March 2004. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/86655-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)SPE International Conference and Exhibition on Health, Safety, Environment, and Sustainability Search Advanced Search AbstractTremendous improvement has been made in the safety performance of the upstream exploration and production activities of our industry in the recent past. The oversight of contractor performance by the operators as well as advancement in technology risk management and hazard awareness are all key elements of this success. The results mean we have a safer work environment and a continuation of our license to operate.However, one of the recent trends in contractor oversight by operators has been the delegation of the HSE performance evaluation from the HSE function to Procurement. Although this migration incorporates HSE into the business (which is always welcome) it may have negative consequences based on knowledge and competency of the issues. In question is the process of assessing the safety performance of contractors without understanding of the risk profile. Another concern is the assumption the method of collection of inputs is comparable since injury rates are derived using a common formula. This can put stress on a system that is not necessarily absolute.A better method of evaluating HSE performance would be to include a balance of leading and lagging indicators as well as an investigation of the policies and programs that lead to the overall performance of the contractor. With a more comprehensive evaluation, there will be a better understanding of relative performance of the contractors including their weaknesses and strengths. A more comprehensive evaluation will also place less stress on the lagging indicator measurement system.IntroductionThe noticeable improvement in overall safety performance of the upstream exploration and production manifests itself in decreasing injury rates1,2. Driving improvement are technological advances, better identification and management of risk, and safety management systems; along with the increasing oversight and expectations of operators for the contractor community. This oversight is critical for operators as the contractors represent a majority of the workforce exposed to the risk of daily operations and therefore affect the safety performance of the operator3,4,5.As attitudes towards the management of safety have evolved from acceptance of the risk, to concern over performance to active management, oversight programs have evolved as well. During the incipient phases of active management, the HSE function within operators typically oversaw creation of the evaluation methods. These evaluations can, and in some cases did, become more sophisticated5. Contractor performance, in these situations, was measured against a standard, and when the lagging indicators were above pre-determined limits the contractor had to implement improvement plans or other measures to be eligible for work3.Guidance for assessing vendors from industry groups6 and the participation by a wider variety of operators indicate that the process and necessity for evaluating contractors is well established. Another indication that the process is widely accepted is the integration of evaluation into the standard business practices of vendor management within the procurement function. This transition means that the evaluation of performance has become just one of the key elements in routine contracting of work.New Directions and Emerging IssuesAs the procurement functions begin to take over the role of evaluating contractors, and the overall increased focus on measures, several issues begin to emerge. The first issue is the pressure put on the gathering and reporting of performance measures by contractors as well as full understanding of the meaning of the numbers. Secondly, many companies have overlapping or redundant evaluations of contractors at global, regional and local levels. This redundancy occupies resources and is very inefficient for both organizations. Keywords: spe international conference, contractor 2sig-2 standard deviation, evaluation, contractor, operator, hsse reporting, rir-recordable injury illness rate, safety, society of petroleum engineers, procedure Subjects: HSSE & Social Responsibility Management, Safety, HSSE reporting This content is only available via PDF. 2004. Society of Petroleum Engineers You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,060
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,095
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,060
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,317

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0600,095
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0060,009
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0060,007
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,035
Tête enseignante GPT0,260
Écart entre enseignants0,225 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2004
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueProceedings of SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and ProductionMême sujetOil and Gas Production TechniquesTravaux en français237 207