Summary Injuries, spills, and service-delivery failures often are the result of poorly managed risk and inadequate planning. At their worst, the incidents cost lives, cause environmental damage, and result in financial liability and poor public perception of the company and the industry. To mitigate risk and plan for zero-defect production, functional management systems have been created. These management systems are very well-established and have improved performance within the specific function. However, deployment of these systems can create organizational misalignment, prioritization chaos, and divide scarce resources. Integrating health, safety, and environment (HSE) and quality into a process-based system reduces or eliminates these problems and creates a seamless method of delivering superior performance. Introduction Deficiencies in the quality-planning process can lead to loss of sales, customer complaints, and product liability.1 The same holds true for HSE planning and execution. A failure in these areas can also cause loss of life and damage a company's reputation within the community. Preventing these failures is necessary not only for competitive survival but also is a moral obligation. Organizations need structured systems to manage change and direct focus. Misalignment of organizational goals leads to confusion and an inability to meet baseline performance standards. Implementation of a structured or formal management system can drive organizational alignment, policy, strategic deployment, and continual improvement. For HSE, the management system helps maintain regulatory compliance and reduces the potential for accidents, injuries, and releases. Use of a management system also leads to significant cost savings for the company, reaching the multi-million-dollar range.2 Functional Management Systems Tacit knowledge and management by objective created an environment in companies where the focus was on the function rather than the process. Post-failure evaluations and reactionary change were the standard for improvement. The organizational need to capture and quantify success, correct systemic failure, and create minimum guidance for expectations led to a rethinking of how business perceived quality and HSE. Management systems, such as Intl. Standards Organization (ISO) 90003 and 14000,4 Eco-Management Audit Scheme,5 British Standard BS 8800,6 American Petroleum Inst. (API) RP 757 and Spec. Q1,8 and E&P Forum,9 were developed in response to these issues. Specifically, the need to reduce variance, capture knowledge, and build on best practices for HSE and quality were key factors addressed in these systems. A well-designed and deployed management system bridges the gap between functional compliance and organizational systemic performance. However, existing separate quality and HSE management systems do not facilitate creation of common aligned objectives for the organization. Nor do they illuminate the interrelations and interfaces between functions within the processes required for delivery of systemic performance. The goals of each function are not required to support those of the processes, and they often end up dividing the resources. Occurrence of an event that requires a hand-off between functions usually halts activities while the transition is being made. This slows down the flow of work and is confusing to all levels of the organization. Multiple, functional systems have the following problems.They create redundancy of effort, and therefore are inherently inefficient.10They are perceived by both management and the work force as bureaucratic and not helping the process.11Because they focus on compliance rather than being systems focused, they become relegated to the professional quality, safety, or environmental expert.The organization could be found in compliance by regulating authorities and still have catastrophic failures.12 Background In the early 1990's, Halliburton Energy Services began piloting ISO 90003 and an HSE management system. Three problems came to light during implementation. The first was that operational resource constraints occurred with implementation of two separate systems at the same time. The second problem arose because the two systems had standards that had very similar intentions but were not aligned with the way work was performed. This was confusing to those implementing the systems, as well as to those performing the task. The third was that, with implementation of two separate systems, quality and HSE were still seen as separate activities and not a part of the work process.
Search from 250 M+ research papersSearch from 250 M+ research papers
Mar 1, 2005
M Cavacece + 3
Open Access