|Publisher||Society of Petroleum Engineers||Language||English|
|Content Type||Conference Paper|
|Title||How to Win Hearts and Minds: The Theory behind the Program|
|Authors||Patrick Hudson, Leiden University; Dianne Parker, Matthew Lawrie, Manchester University; Gerard van der Graaf, Robin Bryden, Shell Exploration and Production|
SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, 29-31 March 2004, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
|Copyright||2004. Society of Petroleum Engineers|
The Hearts and Mind program was originally intended to develop intrinsic motivation in the workplace. Unlike many change and behaviour-based HSE programs, often based upon the use of common sense and experience, the Hearts and Minds program relies upon scientifically validated models to ensure robustness and effectiveness, but the supporting material does not describe the scientific bases used to develop processes and supporting materials. This paper describes those theories and provides a reference for those who wish a deeper level of understanding.
There are two ways to improve HSE performance in high-risk industries such as the Oil and Gas industry. One approach concentrates upon the identification and management of the hazards of the workplace. This is the approach taken, with considerable success, with the implementation of HSE-management systems. However, this approach is relatively coarse-grained and takes little account of the contribution of the individual, except as a singular source of error. The role of the individual is reduced to following procedures defined elsewhere. The ‘systemic’ approach was certainly a considerable improvement upon earlier conceptions of the role of the individual in safety, which assumed that they were the source of numerous unsafe acts and needed to be controlled, without the realisation that much of what people did, or were capable of doing, was constrained by organisational and systemic factors often out of the control of the individual worker (Reason, 1997).
Once an HSE-MS is in place there remains, unfortunately, a residual number of incidents that has become increasingly difficult to eradicate. HSE performance, after showing considerable improvements since 1992, began to flatten out and it became clear that a new approach, complementary to HSE-MS, was required. The individual, it appears, can make a contribution over and above the systemic management. Organisations involved in hazardous work cannot control everything from a distance, those close at hand also bear a responsibility to behave appropriately and do what they can control. Many incidents, while still showing unfortunate organisational and managerial failures, also demonstrate how much of a contribution individuals can make to their own safety and that of their colleagues. There is a contract that can be identified between an organisation, that promises to deliver, via HSE-MS as safe a workplace as possible, and the worker who promises to do the right thing when they have the control. This obligation is one for which they can be held accountable. A company can provide an extremely safe vehicle, but the driver still has to drive it safely; a company can provide the best PPE, the worker still has to use it. The highest levels of HSE performance require both organisation and good attitudes (Hudson, 2003).
The advent of HSE-MS delivered much of the necessary systematic approach to the hazards of the industry. Today's challenge is to bring the attitudes up to the level of the hazard management. This contrasts with the world's commercial aviation industry, in which there is little doubt about the attitudes of all concerned to safety, but the development of an organised and systematic approach to the management of the hazards is of recent date. The world regulator ICAO, only recently required SMS for Air Traffic Control (November 2003) and for airports in 2005. There is not even a formal requirement for SMS in airlines to date, although that can be expected in the near future.
|File Size||160 KB||5|