Building Process Safety Culture-A Practical Implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper presents a real-implementation example of how leaders at all levels of the organization work in unison to build a process safety culture in complex and very diverse operations. The process safety culture of this organization comprises the beliefs, attitudes and work practices from senior management to the front-line operations supervisor, field engineer and most importantly to the operator level. ConocoPhillips Indonesia (COPI) Business Unit has been implementing a process that engages people from all levels of the functional organization through a purposeful process safety management review approach. At the top of the hierarchy of this process safety management review approach, COPI has formed a Process Safety Board comprised of the operations vice president, senior managers from operations, engineering and HSE. In the middle of the hierarchy, COPI has established Process Safety Council composed of process safety engineers and engineering managers. COPI also assigns Process Safety Coaches who interface daily with operators in the field. This paper focuses on the process safety management review, which is conducted at the Process Safety Board level to continually build the appropriate process safety culture within the organization. The COPI Leadership Team actively participates in the business unit process safety culture and engages both occupational safety and process safety issues through Process Safety Board meetings, which are attended by the next layer of the process safety management team, Process Safety Council, and representatives from operations including Process Safety Coaches (Figures 1-3). Process safety leading indicators are reviewed during the board meeting. The review of the leading indicators does more than the checking of procedures and process safety training statistics. The Leadership Team also evaluates the leading indicators at the bottom, and all levels, of the process safety pyramid to drive process safety performance. The building of the process safety culture effort is recognized after board members and others demonstrate their commitment to the process and equally value process safety as occupational safety and operational activities. Through this review approach, process safety events and issues garner appropriate attention from all levels of the organization, and help COPI to continually support an appropriate process safety culture. Figure 1 Process Safety Board Members Figure 2 Process Safety Council Members Figure 3 Process Safety Coach Members This paper does not present novel improvements to process safety management, but provides structural information to commit, engage, understand, and support a developing sustainable process safety culture.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".