Employing the Techniques of High Reliability Organisations in the Oil & Gas Industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Employing the Techniques of High Reliability Organisations in the Oil & Gas Industry Tim McGrath; Tim McGrath University of Western Australia Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Tim Conversi Tim Conversi University of Western Australia 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-86742-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/86742-MS Published: March 29 2004 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Get Permissions Search Site Citation McGrath, Tim, and Tim Conversi. "Employing the Techniques of High Reliability Organisations in the Oil & Gas Industry." 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/10.2118/86742-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 AbstractThe objective of having zero health, safety and environmental incidents whilst achieving excellent business performance is the long-term goal for oil and gas industry operators and contractors. There are a few "High Reliability Organisations" (HROs) that have achieved better than expected performance in other hazardous and complex industries where the consequences of failure are also a threat to organisational survival. The Berkeley Group (Roberts, 1993) identified and analysed this phenomenon in the late 1980's. It may be possible for oil and gas industry operators and contractors to employ some of the techniques that HROs utilise to achieve higher reliability. A tool has been developed which measures the degree to which an organisation employs these techniques at each level of the organisation from the boardroom to the drill floor so that areas for improvement may be identified. The tool can also be used in a similar manner to 4D seismic to identify the improvement or reduction in reliability following the implementation of, for example, a new management technique, organisational change or a change in the operating environment. The tool will be presented along with data from oil and gas operators who are on the path from "Reliability Seeking" to "High Reliability".BackgroundThere are two opposing schools of thought when it comes to the management of safety and reliability in hazardous and complex industries.Normal Accident TheorySagan (1993) states that:Accidents are inevitable in complex, tightly coupled systemsSafety is one of a number of competing goalsRedundancy often reduces safety by increasing complexity and opaqueness and encouraging risk takingThere is a fundamental organisational contradiction between decentralising to deal with complexity and centralising to deal with couplingAdopting a military model of intense discipline, socialisation and isolation to cope is incompatible with democratic valuesOrganisations cannot train for the unimaginable, highly dangerous or politically unpalatable operationsDenial of responsibility, faulty reporting, and reconstruction of history cripple effects at learningPerrow (1999) states that we should not be surprised when complex organisations fail as:They have too many parts with too many unanticipated interactions to be controlled effectively.They operate in an uncertain environment, which provides limited information on which to make decisions and allows little time between observing error and recovering from it.Any efforts to increase safety by redundancy and automation will ultimately decrease the reliability.HRO TheoryAccording to Rochlin (1997) complex organisations, for whom the public perception of the consequences of technical error mean an end to organizational survival, can react to unanticipated interactions and sequences in time to avert failure. They achieve this by investing in excess capacity and redundancy of human, organizational and technical systems through continual training, fostering a culture of reliability and encouraging heightened suspicion of error even when things appear to be well. Keywords: dimension, reliability, implementation, engineering, questionnaire response, high reliability organisation, sufficiency, rochlin, safety, hro Subjects: Safety This content is only available via PDF. 2004. Society of Petroleum Engineers You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".