HSE-MS Audit Team Briefing Sessions

HSE-MS Audit Team Briefing Sessions

Team Briefing programme
Why do we audit? When do we audit? Link Model HSE-MS auditing What do we audit? Audit methodology What do we audit against? Ten principles of HSE-MS (EP questionnaire) Site visits & interviews Report Writing Audit rating Audit schedule Audit Team task distribution

Risk definition Risk = Frequency * Consequence

Escalating Impact of Errors Insurable Risks - Assets / Liabilities
1970 Torrey Canyon $ Million 1980 Amoco Cadiz $ ,, 1986 Piper Alpha $ ? ,, 1990 Exxon Valdez $ ,, 1993 Braer $ ? ,, 1995 Sea Empress $ ,, Next ??????

Escalating Impact of Errors Non Insurable Risks - Commercial/Financial
1970 Shell Nuclear Initiative $ 1000? million 1990 Showa Shell $ ,, 1996 Barings Bank $ ,, 1996 Brent Spar $ 100? ,, 1996 Shell Nigeria $ ??? ,, Next ??????

Escalating Impact of Errors
High Impact events - All avoidable Bhopal people Exxon Valdez Environment Herald of Free Enterprise lives Estonia people Next ?????? Consequences Leading to new standards (cost effective?) Loss of business

Moody-Stuart letter 17/3/92
Business Risk ".. the safety and environmental risks of our operations are perhaps the largest business risk we run, .." Moody-Stuart letter 17/3/92 to Opco MDs and GMs

Risk management Risk = Frequency * Consequence
Changing goalposts ! Steady (reduced?) frequencies Increasing consequences Have we gained ? Risk of error needs to be massively reduced!

SIEP View “There should be absolutely no question of operational urgency or other pressures taking priority over safety. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that improved safety in operations goes hand in hand with greater efficiency, quality and cost effectiveness I would therefore request you to ensure that work does not start before it is confirmed that essential safety systems are in place and that staff are accountable for this requirement. Where we cannot ensure safety, operations should be suspended. M Moody-Stuart 24/4/92

EP 93-1600 (Nov 1993) E&P Guideline on Audits and Reviews
Group Policy: It is the responsibility of the Chief Executivs and managers of the Group Companies to set up, maintain and operate an appropriate framework of business controls. The process of internal audit provides a means for independently reviewing these controls. Audit plans should be drawn up which cover all aspects of a Company’s activities (including operational, commercial, technical, health, safety and environmental aspects). Appropriate resources with skills matching the objectives should be used to conduct audits. The Company’s Internal Audit Committee should approve the audit plan, monitor progress against plan, review significant control findings, and ensure that agreed action plans are followed up. The Group policy applies both to SIEP-EP and the E&P Operating Companies.

HSE Audits & Reviews 84-98 Health Management Activity Rig Seismic
Start up Facility Environmental 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98

(post SIEP reorganisation) frequency SIEP led E&P Audits
New World (post SIEP reorganisation) frequency SIEP led E&P Audits On OU (Opco) request SIEP steering/guidance to be provided by RBDs, upon detection that OUs do no longer operate with boundaries of Group standards Coordinate schedule such that same ground is not covered twice within recommended period

Business Controls Business controls are the structured means which management uses to help it achieve the objectives which have been set for the company.

Business Controls Framework
Environment Business Objectives Processes Control Mechanisms Organisation Policy Procedures Supervision Management review and appraisal Control Application Business Operations

Model Management System
Correct Improve Policy & Objectives Organisation Responsibilities & Resources Standards & Procedures Implementation & Monitoring Review & Appraisal Control

Corrective Action & Improvement Corrective Action & Improvement
HSE Management System Leadership and Commitment Policy and Strategic Objectives Organisation, Responsibilities Resources, Standards & Doc. Hazard and Effects Management Monitoring Corrective Action Planning & Procedures Implementation Audit Corrective Action & Improvement Corrective Action & Improvement Management Review

Mapping HSE-MS HSE-MS as per model HSE-MS for auditing
Leadership & Commitment Policy & Strategic Objectives Organisation & Responsibilities Resources & Competence Assurance HEMP Planning Standards, Procedures & Doc. Control Implementation & Monitoring Audit & Corrective Action Management Review & Improvement Leadership & Commitment Policy & Strategic Objectives Organisation, Responsibilities, Resources, Standards & Doc. Control HEMP Planning & Procedures Implementation Audit Management Review

Audit Definition Audit is the systematic process whereby it is established that business controls: are complete and consistent are cost-effective and efficient safeguard the company’s resources and promote their effective use provide, and protect the integrity of, required records and information comply with laws and regulations

Internal Audit Mission
To provide, as an integral part of the management review process, independent advice on the maintenance and improvement of a well-balanced business control framework appropriate to the organisation

Structure of Questionnaires
Generic Questionnaire (common to all HSE Audits) Leadership & Commitment Policy & Strategic Objectives Organisation & Responsibilities Resources & Competence Hazards and Effects Management Planning Standards, Procedures & Doc. Control Implementation & Monitoring Audit & Corrective Action Management Review This is an example only. Team leader to modify as needed Subsidiary Questionnaire Facilities Subsidiary Questionnaire Facilities Subsidiary Questionnaire Start-Up Subsidiary Questionnaire Seismic Subsidiary Questionnaire Drilling Subsidiary Questionnaire Activity Subsidiary Questionnaire Environmt Subsidiary Questionnaire Health

Objective & Strategy Objective: Strategy
To provide assurance that HSE management system is effective Strategy Look for unknown problems Focus on gaps between areas of responsibility Investigate identified deficiencies in depth - find underlying causes Record all areas investigated, noting any omissions

Audit Overview Based on National and Company standards
Sampling process Overall impression usually negative attempt to balance but focus on improvement Focus on controls Recommendations illustrate rather than limit solution Ownership by whole team facts supported by whole team judgement by consensus

Start Up Audit Verification prior to start-up of the facility that:
HSE management is effective during development and construction Recommendations of design reviews, Hazops etc. have been followed up Hardware is fit for intended purpose and complies with standards Operating, maintenance and emergency procedures are available, adequate, and understood People have been trained for their work

Areas Covered Auditee Organisation HSE Management
Competence HSE Management Effectiveness of management controls Equipment and Operability Fitness for purpose Design Process Reviews and change control Other Client's request

Cause and Effect Cause Recommendation Problem Business objectives?
Policy failing? Recommendation Organisation failing? Review & App. failing? Procedural failing? Supervisory failing? Problem Detailed findings/deficiencies/problems

Audit Process Familiarisation Review & Testing Reporting
Terms of reference Control Assessment Matrix Audit programme (incl. test plans) Review & Testing Test findings Site visit Study Documentation Interviews Reporting Rating Present Findings Drafting Editing Report Finalisation

Audit process Audit report Summary Level of detail Very detailed
Kick-off meeting Audit report Summary Background data Present to Auditee Audit Rating Audit Programme & Questionnaire Assess structure of controls Summarise Findings Level of detail Cluster issues Test controls Establish state of controls Detail findings Clear findings Very detailed Familiarisation Review & testing Reporting

Example only: Team leader to edit
Terms of Reference OBJECTIVE To assess the effectiveness of Barendrecht - Ziedewij gas production and evacuation system HSE-MS. Verify that: relevant Safety Case is implemented and that the systems are operated accordingly HSE risks are adequately identified and those considered acceptable are managed at ALARP levels. SCOPE Prod. ops. and maint. activities at the B & Z installations All interfaces with relevant facilities. Corporate MSs, other than SC management and documents, standards and organisation elements directly related to routine operations of the systems are excluded. Example only: Team leader to edit

Terms of Reference Special attention Awareness of and compliance with the management of hazards Adequacy of measures (planned or in place) to rectify the shortcomings identified in the V&G document, Adequacy of emergency response and recovery measures, Example only: Team leader to edit

Standards Laws and regulations of The Netherlands Permit requirements Current NAM (BUO) standards and procedures V&G document. The audit may also include comment on any shortfall in the above in relation to Shell Group and industry standards. Audit will be conducted along EP methodology Example only: Team leader to edit

Standards Does it meet legal requirements?
Does it meet current NAM standards? if not, upgrade automatically Does it meet current SIEP standard? Does it meet current industry standard? if not, upgrade if cost-effective

Leadership & Commitment
HSE an integral part of business Do managers effectively balance any conflict in the competing requirements to safeguard technical integrity and to optimise cashflow? Do staff believe that management and supervisors are serious about the priority of HSE matters? Do managers and supervisors periodically visit worksites and attend departmental safety meetings? Do managers and supervisors lead by example - do they follow their own rules?

Policy & Strategic Objectives
Challenging policy and objectives understood by all Is there a Health, Safety and Environment policy? Are strategic objectives defined (also for HSE aspects)? Do the policy and objectives require continuous improvement, and set a leadership goal? Are objectives cascaded to tasks and targets for all staff? Does the policy contain an explicit statement that work should be stopped/not started if unsafe? Are the policy and objectives endorsed by the present chief executive? Are they readily available to employees and contractors? Do employees and contractors understand policy and objectives? Is Contractors' HSE management is consistent with Company's?

Organisation & Responsibilities
Is the organisation appropriate? Are boundaries and interfaces adequately described? Are responsibilities defined to fully cover all activities? Is there an appropriate balance between line staff and advisers? Do all staff have job descriptions (also defining HSE aspects)? Do staff understand and accept their responsibilities and authorities?

Resources & Competence Assurance
Are resources adequate for effective HSE management? Are job competence needs defined? Are individual competencies assessed against the job requirements? Are the mandatory competency requirements being complied with? Is there an structured HSE training system? Does the HSE training system meet line requirements? Is the HSE training system being used?

Hazards are known, ALARP and contained
HEMP Hazards are known, ALARP and contained Have all hazards and effects been identified? Are consistent screening criteria avalable? Have all risks and effects from from hazards been evaluated ? Have appropriate measures been defined and implemented to reduce intolerable risks to tolerable levels? Have appropriate measures been defined and implemented to reduce tolerable risks to ALARP level? Have tolerable risks been elliminated where practicable? Are the procedures and other measures and practices effective in containing hazards at ALARP level?

Likely magnitude of loss
Managing risk Eliminate High Avoid ??? Likely magnitude of loss REDUCE Manage Alarp Accept ??? Low High Probability of occurrence

Insurance and Risk management
Business objectives? Cause Policy failing? Organisation failing? Review & App. failing? Recommendation HSE Management System Procedural failing? Supervisory failing? Problem Detailed findings/deficiencies/problems

Risk Assessment Matrix
Definitions Consequence consequence of scenarios that can develop from the release of a hazard given the available barriers and defences (in incidents or near misses the hazard has been released already whereas in all other cases the hazard has not yet been released) Probability probability is estimated on the basis of historical evidence that the assessed consequence has materialised (i.e. not the probability of the release of the hazard)

Weakness Classification Matrix
B C D E Environ- ment Repu- tation Severity People Assets Happens several times a year in the audited OU Happens several times a year in the audited facility Never heard of in EP industry Has occurred in EP industry Has occurred in the audited OU No injury or damage to health No damage No effect No impact Manage for continuous improvement Slight injury or health effects Slight damage Slight effect Slight impact 1 Minor injury or health effects 2 Minor damage Minor effect Minor impact Major injury or health effects Consider- able impact 3 Local damage Localised effect Incorporate risk reduction Measures Single fatality or permanent total disability 4 Major damage Major effect National impact Intolerable eliminate Inter- national impact 5 Multiple fatalities Extensive damage Massive effect Serious: Exposes OU to a major extent in terms of achievement of corporate HSE objectives or results. High: Though not serious, essential to be brought to Management attention. Includes medium weaknesses as repeat from previous reports. Medium: Could result in perceptible and undesirable effect on achievement of HSE objectives. Low: No major HSE impact at process level, correction will assure greater effectiveness/efficiency in process concerned.

Weakness Classification Matrix
People Assets Environ- ment Repu- tation Severity 1 2 3 4 5 No injury or damage to health Slight injury or health effects Minor injury Major injury Single fatality or permanent total disability Multiple fatalities No damage Slight Minor Local Major Extensive effect impact Localised Consider- able National Inter- national Massive Never heard of in EP industry A Low Medium High Has occurred in B Has occurred in the audited OU C D Happens several times a year in the audited OU E Happens several times a year in the audited facility Serious Serious: Exposes OU to a major extent in terms of achievement of corporate HSE objectives or results. High: Though not serious, essential to be brought to Management attention. Includes medium weaknesses as repeat from previous reports. Medium: Could result in perceptible and undesirable effect on achievement of HSE objectives. Low: No major HSE impact at process level, correction will assure greater effectiveness/efficiency in process concerned.

Risk to People Severity Description 0 No injury or damage to health
1 Slight injury or health effects (including first aid case and medical treatment case) - Not affecting work performance or causing disability. 2 Minor injury or health effects (Lost Time Injury) - Affecting work performance, such as restriction to activities (Restricted Work Case)or a need to take a few days to fully recover (Lost Work Case). Limited health effects which are reversible, eg skin irritation, food poisoning. 3 Major injury or health effects (including Permanent Disability) - Affecting work performance in the longer term, such as a prolonged absence from work. Irreversible health damage without loss of life, eg noise induced hearing loss, chronic back injuries. 4 Single fatality or permanent total disability. From an accident or occupational illness (poisoning, cancer). 5 Multiple fatalities - From an accident or occupational illness (poisoning, cancer).

Risk to Assets Severity Description 0 Zero damage.
1 Slight damage - No disruption to operation (costs less than US$10,000). 2 Minor damage - Brief disruption (costs less than US$100,000). 3 Local damage - Partial shutdown (can be restarted but costs up to US$500,000). 4 Major damage - Partial operation loss (2 weeks shutdown, costs up to US$10,000,000. 5 Extensive damage - Substantial or total loss of operation (costs in excess of US$10,000,000)

Risk to Environment Severity Description
0 Zero effect - No environmental damage. No change in the environment. No financial consequences. 1 Slight effect - Local environmental damage. Within the fence and within systems. Negligible financial consequences. 2 Minor effect - Contamination. Damage sufficiently large to attack the environment. Single exceedance of statutory or prescribed criterion. Single complaint. No permanent effect on the environment. 3 Localised effect - Limited loss of discharges known toxicity. Repeated exceedance of statutory or prescribed limit. Affecting neighbourhood. 4 Major effect - Severe environmental damage. The company is required to take extensive measures to restore contaminated environment to its original state. Extended exceedance of statutory or prescribed limits. 5 Massive effect - Persistent severe environmental damage or severe nuisance extending over a large area. In terms of commercial or recreational use or nature conservancy, a major economic loss for the company. Constant, high exceedance of statutory or prescribed limits.

3 Risk to Reputation Severity Description
0 No impact - No public awareness. 1 Slight impact - Public awareness may exist, but there is no public concern. 2 Limited impact - Some local public concern. Some local media and/or political attention with potentially adverse aspects for company operations. 3 Considerable impact - Regional public concern. Extensive adverse attention in local media. Slight national media and/or local/regional political attention. Adverse stance of local government and/or action groups. 4 National impact - National public concern. Extensive adverse attention in the national media. Regional/national policies with potentially restrictive measures and/or impact on grant of licences. Mobilisation of action group. 5 International impact - International public attention. Extensive adverse attention in international media. National/international policies with potentially severe impact on access to new areas, grants of licences and/or tax legislation. 3

Classification findings/recommendations
Weakness Definition Serious Exposes company to a major extent in terms of achievement of corporate HSE objectives or results High Though not serious, is essential to be brought to attention of senior management team. Includes any medium weakness which is repeat finding from previous report. Medium Could result in perceptible and undesirable effect on achievement of HSE objectives. Low ** No major HSE impact at process level, correction will assure greater effectiveness/efficiency. ** Low Recommendations will be kept out of body audit report. Will be appended to report as memo to auditee.

Bow-tie Concept HAZARD CONSEQUENCES Harm to people and Events and
damage to assets or environment Events and Circumstances BARRIERS HAZARD CONSEQUENCES Undesirable event with potential for harm or damage Engineering activities Maintenance activities Operations activities

WORKPLACE HAZARD MANAGEMENT
HSE Risk Management SAFETY / HSE CASE COMPANY CONTRACTOR Demonstration (regulator, shareholder Major hazards of installation Quantitative risk assessment Safety-critical activities Latent failures Execution (Minor) hazards at the workplace Qualitative risk assessment Hazardous activities Active failures Engineering Design Hardware WORKPLACE HAZARD MANAGEMENT Operations People

Contractor HSE What is contracted? equipment and personnel
specified product or service Contractor HSE management system Pre-qualification: can contractor meet all HSE req’s? Role of contractholder/ single point responsibility Contract HSE plan have all hazards been identified are controls in place to eliminate/control hazards are systems in place to verify: audits and inspections

contractual requirements HSE Plan
Managing HSE Risk OU Contractor Policy Process Task HSE-MS HSE-MS interface documents Rig specific HSE Case HSE Case contractual requirements HSE Plan Manage workplace hazards Manage workplace hazards

? Documented systems e.g. for drilling operations Company Common
industry guidance Company Common Contractor Policy and vision ? HSE-MS HSE-MS processes (high level) Contract HSE Requirements Departmental MS HSE-Case for Equipment + Site Addendum Demonstration/assurance that all documents are in place and are operational at the right level etc. HSE-Case for Company Operation processes (detailed) Interface Document Workplace hazard management system Workplace hazard management system task level

Report - Contents Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Mgt Summary Audit admin.
HSE-MS elements Leader ship & Commitment Policy & Strategic objectives Organisation & Responsibilities Resources & competence assurance HEMP Planning Standards, Procs, Doc. Control Implementation & Monitoring Audit Management review Summary of Ten HSE-MS Elements Chapter 3 - HSE- MS Chapter 4 - HSE in Business Detailed description of adequacy & deficiencies of barriers and controls to manage the main risks & hazards 3.1 Leadership & commitment 3.2 Policy & Strategic Objectives 3.3 Organisation & Responsibilities 3.4 Resources & Competence 3.5 HEMP 3.6 Planning 3.7 Standards, Procedures & DC 3.8 Implementation & Monitoring 3.9 Audit 3.10 Management Review Description of main risks/hazards and summary of adequacy barriers/controls to manage these

Year 2000 problem 10 to 30 % of all chips affected
Problem as yet ill defined- Crunch in 1999? Everybody wants updates at the same time Old systems will not be updated- replace in time Processes may stop, Customers and Suppliers may stop. Safeguarding systems may stop unnoticed In HSE area most systems are hardwired, but F&G system likely affected

Structured and comprehensive
Planning Structured and comprehensive Is there an effective integrated planning process, including short, medium and venture life plans? Do plans align with corporate objectives? Do plans cover all activities necessary to protect asset integrity? Is there an annual HSE plan? Emergency response (ER) Are adequate ER plans and procedures in place within a defined hierarchy? Are ER plans and procedures available where required? Are ER plans and procedures known and understood and used? Are ER plans and procedures and plans systematically reviewed/updated?

Standards, Procedures & Doc. Control
Are standards clearly defined and appropriate? Are adequate procedures in place within a defined hierarchy? Are procedures appropriate to the operation and do they define mandatory aspects? Are procedures available where required? Are procedures known and understood and used? Are procedures and plans systematically reviewed/updated? Is there an effective document control system?

Implementation & Monitoring
Is work implemented in line with plans and procedures? Do supervisors regularly check the work of their subordinates and provide remedial advice as needed? Are performance measurement and control systems established? Are improvement targets set and achieved, are there regular reviews at all levels? Is performance measured against SMART targets and are appropriate and timely reports generated? Are control breakdowns investigated and remedied? Is non-compliance adequately dealt with? Is the monitoring system responsive to developmental change? Is there a structured system for HSE communication? Is there an adequate system for incident investigation reporting? Are staff (at all levels) HSE motivated?

A structured programme in place
Audit A structured programme in place Is there an Internal Audit Committee? Is there an integrated audit programme? How is the audit programme managed? Are audits truly independent? Are the audit resources adequate and competent? Are audit recommendations comprehensively followed-up? Is the follow-up process adequately reported? Is there a system for lateral application of audit recommendations?

Management retain overview and stimulate improvement
Management Review Management retain overview and stimulate improvement Is there a comprehensive HSE review (at least annually)? Is there an effective management inspection visit programme? Is asset integrity periodically assessed by management? Are audit reports (singly and cumulatively) reviewed by management? Are incident investigations (singly and cumulatively) reviewed by management? Do managers of an appropriate level lead investigations of serious incidents? What improvements have resulted from the management review process? Do management have their eyes on (the right) ball?

Work Site Programme Procedures Job report Standards Production
Job order Production

Deficiencies Policy Deficiency? Control Deficiency? Control Lateral?
Detail Lateral? Detail Deficiency Detail Lateral? Detail Lateral?

Findings Require Verification eg:
Interview confirming written procedure Observation of activity confirming written procedure MoM confirming interview Observation of hardware confirming standard

Questionnaires Define area to be covered, and divided between the team members Reduce gaps and oversights Reduce overlap and repetition Suggest subjects and detail for new auditors Help structure interviews and research Stimulate imagination to add Must be edited, tailored, NOT a check list

Generic Questions Equipment Aspects
What is it? What does it do? Does it work? How do you know? How often tested / maintained? Test / maintenance covered by procedure? Procedure available? - correct? - followed? Is special equipment needed? - available? - used? Test / maintenance checked by supervisor? Results recorded? Reliability calculated? Procedure / frequency systemmatically reviewed / adjusted?

Generic Questions Competence Aspects
Are job needs defined? Are each individual’s skills recorded? Is there a gap analysis? Is supplementary training planned? Has competence been verified? By whom? - against what criteria? Who checks your work? What exactly is checked? - how often? Is feedback provided? What training has been received? (also on-the-job) What further training is required?

Generic Questions Procedural Aspects
Are all safety-crital aspects covered by procedures? Are mandatory aspects identified? Is each procedure: comprehensive, clear and concise? available where required? known and used? authorised by an appropriate person? a controlled document? systemmatically reviewed? Are staff encouraged to improve procedures? Do procedures satisfy underlying objectives?

Interviewing - Preparation
Review collected documents & data Team members select areas Edit questionnaire for selected areas Discuss finalised questionnaires Identify site interviewees Adjust areas selected to give full coverage Ask Auditee to schedule interviews One hour each on interviewee's territory

Interviewing - Pairing
Each auditor paired: to witness deficiencies to confirm adequacy to question the other’s assumptions to minimise misunderstandings between interviewer and interviewee

Interviewing - Organisation
Make an appointment on interviewee's territory Pick relevant areas, highlight key questions Agree timing and stick to it Make notes on questionnaire Keep quiet during other's time Be on time and don’t overrun Cover all key points or make another appointment Thank interviewee Compare overall impressions The better one is prepared for the interview , the more one gets from it !

Interviewing - Approach
Minimise stress 2 interviewers only (max one hour) Introduce interviewers Outline aims of audit Normal Opco routine supported by Dept. Audit of system - not individuals Aim to improve future - not witch hunt past Open report and presentation Report is view of audit team - not of sources Ask interviewee’s background Use open questions and listen to replies Avoid judgments, but do not condone Do not argue or attack

Report - Contents Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Mgt Summary Audit admin.
HSE-MS elements Leader ship & Commitment Policy & Strategic objectives Organisation & Responsibilities Resources & competence assurance HEMP Planning Standards, Procs, Doc. Control Implementation & Monitoring Audit Management review Summary of Ten HSE-MS Elements Chapter 3 - HSE- MS Chapter 4 - HSE in Business Leadership & commitment Policy & Strategic Objectives 3.3 Organisation & Responsibilities Resources & Competence HEMP Planning Standards, Procedures & DC Implementation & Monitoring 3.9 Audit 3.10 Management Review 4.1 Containment 4.2 Control of ignition 4.3 Safeguarding systems 4.4 Operator/process interfaces 4.5 Personnel emergency services 4.6 Fire hazard management 4.7 Workplace practices 4.8 Occupational Health 4.9 Transport & logistics 4.10 Service contractors

Report Objectives For auditee(s) and for management
Issues, effects, causes identified Practicable recommendations corrective action Opinion on adequacy of control framework For auditee(s) and for management

Report - Text Handling 2nd Draft Team Author Team Author Team Author
1st Draft Critic Team Critic 2nd Draft Auditee Team Discussion Auditee Report

Report - Style Standard index and format
Team editor solely responsible for English Minimise recommendations "to study" Factual rather than opinion IS/IS NOT rather than TEAM CONSIDER if necessary verify further No time for perfection not "agreed" by auditee not binding on auditee

Report - Text Drafting Keep it short, punchy and to-the-point
Outline section format Describe the situation as found Comment on good as well as bad Discuss improvement Action: “Improve....” All text to all team Check text with severest critic Agree facts and feasibility Welcome support Mark up changes for later inclusion Keep it short, punchy and to-the-point Do not attempt to duplicate process design manuals or give a process description aimed at the inexperienced report readers

Report - Text Drafting Tips and hints:
Write everything in style “Normal”. Don’t attempt to format your text i.e. do not put TABS and CRs in an attempt to “make it look nice”. Use document “EMPTY.DOC” as at emplate for every new report section. Make a separate file for every new section you have written or have to write. Give meaningful document name e.g. 419mm.doc Put name and date in document footer Use your spelling checker (UK English not US) Use your team mate(s) to read your drafts Read AUDITKIT documents STYLE.DOC and FORMAT.DOC Remember: Some 30% of what you have written may be modified or removed during the team editing sessions. Don’t waste your/our time.

Report - Actions Stand Alone, Clear & Concise SMAR(T) Motivational
Definitive when read in isolation Not longer than three lines SMAR(T) Specific - as specific as expertise allows and sufficiently specific to ensure that deficiency will indeed be remedied Measurable - must be able to define completion Achievable - must be possible Realistic - should be fit-for-purpose Time-based - timeframe not included in audit report - to be decided by Auditee Motivational Start with an active verb - verify, issue, revise, replace, remove, provide, install, define or appoint Avoid - consider, coordinate, ensure, initiate, monitor, supervise

Classification of actions
Four step activity (refer to classify.doc) 1. Determine the category (People, Assets, Environment, Reputation). 2. Determine the severity level (refer to standard definitions). 3. Determine the context ie position A,B, C, D, E. 4. Code/classify the actions eg: (P)H = People High (A)M = Assets Medium 5. Classify Chapter 3 and 4 actions as per HSE element

Report example 4.1.1 Wells, flowlines and manifolds (incl. risers)
Dynamic risers are of Wellstream design. The production lines have PVDF pressure barriers, a material that has shown several failures recently. Testing of a new end fitting construction to investigate the PVDF problem has been completed to the satisfaction of XXXX. Service life is expected to be ten years and the failure mechanism is the development of a small leak which can be detected in the turret. The expectation, based on model and laboratory tests, is that this leak will develop to a full blown failure over a period of several months. In this case, the full flowline contents will flow in an uncontrolled way into or in the vicinity of, the turret. A contingency plan should be developed, as little experience with this failure mode exists. Action (R)S (a) (6) Develop a riser failure contingency plan. Riser leak detection equipment (annulus flow metering) will be installed. This equipment is safety critical and its effectiveness should be ensured at all times. At present, it is not covered in the Safety Case. A maintenance and inspection programme should be developed, reflecting its importance. Action (E)H (b) (5) Include Riser leak risk and detection system in the Safety Case. Action (A)H (c) (7) Develop a maintenance programme for riser leak detection equipment.

Report example 3.8.4 Incident investigation reporting
The standard of incident investigation has improved to acceptable standards during the past two months. There remains however a number of areas related to Incident investigation reporting which give cause for concern. There is no formal agreed procedure for the prompt communication of incidents between X, Y and Z representatives. There have been occasions where incident occurrence was communicated via third parties e.g. the recent turret fire. Action (P)H (a) (8) Enforce contractual terms for incident notification. Severity Rating (SR) and the subsequent level of management involvement is a problem area. Contractor management are reluctant to participate in formal investigations and try to reduce the SR. Higher motivation is required. Action (P)H (b) (8) Adhere to procedures for establishing incident SR; improve level of contractor management participation in incident investigations. There is no evidence to suggest that near miss reporting is practiced at the yard or is promoted, supported or valued by the SMT. Important learning values are missed. Action (P)M (c) (8) Implement a near miss reporting system.

Bad Action Item “If engineers and users require MC information, they should access the CAIRS system. However if a hard copy needs to be sighted, usually a copy is available at either the Plant or Warehouse. Only as a last resort should copies be requested from Information Services”. Identify potential users and train them in the use of CAIRS.

Bad Action Item “As there is a potential for a legal liability situation to develop, the Corporate policy and guidelines (proposed) should address this issue. Staff should be made aware of the potential for legal liability and where responsibilities lie”. 1 Include legal liabilities in proposed Corporate policy and guidelines. 2 Develop course and train XYZ staff in legal liability.

Bad Action Item “Management endorsement be obtained to conduct a review to establish what impact there has been on safety and quality standards of not having a QA/QC group within the Operations Division. Also to review whether there is a need for such a group and how QA/QC requirements for Operations Division should be addressed in future”.

SHELL-SPEAK - 1 FREQUENT REGULAR AD HOC PERIODIC ENSURE
When I remember REGULAR When the Boss remembers AD HOC When I’m forced to. PERIODIC Once in a Blue Moon ENSURE An object dressed up as a task ENSURE COMPLIANCE An object dressed up as a macho task MONITOR I’ll watch but I’m not responsible ... unless it works! SIPM - EPO/65

SHELL-SPEAK - 2 CO-ORDINATE SUPERVISE DEVELOP AWARENESS
They get the work, I get the credit SUPERVISE As with Co-ordinate, but I’m bigger than them DEVELOP AWARENESS It may happen anyway; if it does I get the credit ACTIVELY ENCOURAGE I’ll clap my hands; it shows I’m awake. AUTHORIZE Where’s my rubber stamp? SUPPORT I’ll read it before I stamp it. SIPM - EPO/65

SHELL-SPEAK - 3 INITIATE, ESTABLISH, etc. ALL KEY PERSONNEL
I tell them to do it . ALL SOME KEY PERSONNEL Whoever is easily spared. Whoever is in at the time. APPROPRIATE Most convenient RELEVANT At least I can see the connection ARRANGE I’ll have my secretary do something. SIPM - EPO/65

Team Editing - Objectives
i Agree & confirm documentation of facts ii Build consensus and common view (total report supported by all team members) iii Obtain ownership by all team members iv Ensure clarity and conciseness v Eliminate irrelevant detail and repetition vi Unify style and correct grammar (also define audit-specific global checks)

Team Editing - Process One sub-section at a time:
i Is text understandable - can it be clarified? ii Does it demonstrate sampling of the subject area? iii Are findings factually correct? iv Are there any sensitivities? v Do all findings have related actions? vi Are all actions preceded by findings? vii Are actions SMAR(T)? viii Minimise additional sub-headings ix Ungroup actions x Unify style and correct grammar minute sessions Anyone may call for time-out

Audit Report Schedule Report % Complete The Hague Example only: Team leader to edit 100 % Team editing & summary 50 % 10 % 1 6 13 18 Audit Days

Finalisation of Report
Plug gaps Gather all outstanding data Check classified actions Collate appendices: Summary sheet Glossary of abbreviations Classified action list Correspondence on TOR Global checks spelling, references, etc.

Global Checks Spell check: Miscellaneous: correct normal spelling
pick-up abbreviations in custom dictionary ensure consistency of abbreviations ensure consistent spelling of place names Miscellaneous: H2S, CO2, quote marks, apostrophies, spaces, bold, italic etc. Other audit-specific (defined during team edit)

Completion of Audit Give team-edited draft report to Auditee
Assessment and audit opinion Draft Main Findings Agree wording of Main Findings with Auditee Incorporate feedback agreed with Auditee Dry-run presentation within team Make final presentation to management Finalise report editing Present final draft report to Auditee (formal report to be issued within one month)

Overall Opinion: Satisfactory / Unsatisfactory
Audit opinion Management Review Leadership and Commitment Policy and Strategic Objectives Organisation and Responsibilities Resources and Competence Assurance HEMP Planning Standards, Procedures & Doc Control Implementation and Monitoring Audit Overall Opinion: Satisfactory / Unsatisfactory

HSE-MS Element Assessment
A high standard of control requiring no additional management attention. A high enough standard of control for improvements to be handled by the normal management involvement. Essential controls are in place, but the deficiencies require focused management intervention. Essential controls are missing or ineffective. Prompt management action is needed. ++ + - - -

Audit Opinion Satisfactory
Although some control weaknesses were identified which require timely corrective actions, such weaknesses, either individually or taken in the aggregate, do not significantly impair the overall controls of the unit of the organisation

Audit Opinion Unsatisfactory
Controls lack essential elements or sufficient attention by the unit. The weaknesses identified, individually or in the aggregate, significantly impair important controls of the unit to the extent that prompt corrective measures by management are necessary to bring such controls to a satisfactory level

Linking Audit to Business Controls
Policy Org- anisation Mgment Review Super- vision Pro- cedures Leadership & Commitment + - - - + - + - - - - + Policy & Strategic Objectives Organise & Responsibilities Resources & Comp Assurance HEMP Planning Standards, Procs & Doc Contr Implement & Communicate Audit Management Review Example only: Team leader to edit

Classified recommendations per HSE-MS element
This is an example only. Team leader to modify as needed Management Review Classification Audit: Implement & Monitor Low Stand, Procs & D/C Medium Planning High HEMP Serious Resources & Comp Org. & Resp Policy & Strat. Obj Leadership & Commitment 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 No. of recommendations Serious: Exposes OU to a major extent in terms of achievement of corporate HSE objectives or results. High: Though not serious, essential to be brought to Management attention. Includes medium weaknesses as repeat from previous reports. Medium: Could result in perceptible and undesirable effect on achievement of HSE objectives. Low: No major HSE impact at process level, correction will assure greater effectiveness/efficiency in process concerned.

Classified recommendations per risk category
This is an example only. Team leader to modify as needed Reputation Classification Low Environment Medium High Assets Serious People 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 no. of recommendations High: Though not serious, essential to be brought to Management attention. Includes medium weaknesses as repeat from previous reports. Low: No major HSE impact at process level, correction will assure greater effectiveness/efficiency in process concerned. Serious: Exposes OU to a major extent in terms of achievement of corporate HSE objectives or results. Medium: Could result in perceptible and undesirable effect on achievement of HSE objectives.

Team leader to modify as needed.
Schedule Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Opening Presentation X Briefing by NAM X "Crash" course in auditing X X Assign tasks X Study material X X Develop quests & interviews X X Site visits X X X Interviews & facts verification X X X X Discuss findings with team X X X X X Discuss findings with auditee X X X Report writing & verification X X X Team review prelim draft X Audit assessment X X Editing / classify action items Example only. Team leader to modify as needed. X Final draft / presentation

Task distribution Management introduction Team Leader
Team introduction Team Leader Team preparation/planning Audit Team Site visits Audit Team Interviews site supervision/workforce Audit Team management interviews Audit Team Preparation 1st draft Audit Team Review/verification 1st draft Audit Team Preparation 2nd draft Audit Team Team editing Audit Team Compile report Team Leader Presentation of findings Principal Auditee Team Leader Local supervision/management Team Leader Senior Management Team Leader

Team Leader role Avoid significant omissions Eliminate the “waffle”
Identify audit objectives Focus audit thrust Significant risk area Avoid significant omissions Significant risk area Eliminate the “waffle” Significant risk area Avoid immaterial Minimal risk area Minimal risk Avoid immaterial

HSE-MS Audit Team Briefing Sessions

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "HSE-MS Audit Team Briefing Sessions"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

HSE-MS Audit Team Briefing Sessions

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "HSE-MS Audit Team Briefing Sessions"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback