HSE-MS Audit Team Briefing Sessions

1
HSE-MS AuditTeam BriefingSessions
2
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-95000 questionnaire)
• Site visits interviews
• Report Writing
• Audit rating
• Audit schedule
• Audit Team task distribution

3
Risk definition
Risk Frequency Consequence
4
EscalatingImpact of Errors
Insurable Risks - Assets / Liabilities

• 1970 Torrey Canyon 10 Million
• 1980 Amoco Cadiz 100 ,,
• 1986 Piper Alpha 3000? ,,
• 1990 Exxon Valdez 10000 ,,
• 1993 Braer 200?
  ,,
• 1995 Sea Empress 150 ,,

Next ??????
5
EscalatingImpact of Errors
Non Insurable Risks - Commercial/Financial

• 1970 Shell Nuclear Initiative 1000? million
• 1990 Showa Shell 1500
  ,,
• 1996 Barings Bank 2000 ,,
  
• 1996 Brent Spar 100?
  ,,
• 1996 Shell Nigeria ??? ,,

Next ??????
6
EscalatingImpact of Errors
High Impact events - All avoidable

• Bhopal - 2000 people
• Exxon Valdez - Environment
• Herald of Free Enterprise - 180 lives
• Estonia - 800 people

Next ??????

• Consequences
• Leading to new standards (cost effective?)
• Loss of business

7
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
8
Risk management
Risk Frequency Consequence

• Changing goalposts !
• Steady (reduced?) frequencies
• Increasing consequences

Have we gained ?
Risk of error needs to be massively reduced!
9
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
10
EP 93-1600 (Nov 1993)EP 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 Companys activities (including
  operational, commercial, technical, health,
  safety and environmental aspects).
• Appropriate resources with skills matching the
  objectives should be used to conduct audits.
• The Companys 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
EP Operating Companies.
11
HSE Audits Reviews 84-98
Environmental
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
96
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
97
98
12
New World (post SIEP reorganisation)frequency
SIEP led EP 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
13
Business Controls
Business controls are the structured means
which management uses to help it achieve the
objectives which have been set for the company.
14
Business Controls Framework
Business Environment
Business Objectives
Processes

• Control Mechanisms
• Organisation
• Policy
• Procedures
• Supervision

• Management
• review and
• appraisal

Control
Application
Business Operations
15
Model Management System
16
HSE Management System
Leadership and Commitment
Policy and Strategic Objectives
Organisation, Responsibilities Resources,
Standards Doc.
Hazard and Effects Management
Planning Procedures
Implementation
Corrective Action Improvement
Audit
Corrective Action Improvement
Management Review
17
Mapping HSE-MS
HSE-MS for auditing
HSE-MS as per model
Leadership Commitment Policy Strategic
Objectives Organisation Responsibilities
Resources Competence Assurance
HEMP Planning Standards, Procedures Doc.
Control Implementation Monitoring Audit
Corrective Action Management Review Improvement
18
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 companys resources and promote
  their effective use
• provide, and protect the integrity of, required
  records and information
• comply with laws and regulations

19
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
20
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 Seismic
Subsidiary Questionnaire Drilling
Subsidiary Questionnaire Start-Up
Subsidiary Questionnaire Health
Subsidiary Questionnaire Activity
Subsidiary Questionnaire Environmt
21
Objective Strategy

• Objective
• 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

22
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

23
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

24
Areas Covered

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

25
Cause and Effect
Cause
Business objectives?
Policy failing?
Recommendation
Review App. failing?
Organisation failing?
Procedural failing?
Supervisory failing?
Problem
Detailed findings/deficiencies/problems
26
Audit Process
Familiarisation
Review Testing
Reporting
27
Audit process
Kick-offmeeting
Summary
Backgrounddata
Present toAuditee
Audit Rating
Audit Programme Questionnaire
Assess structureof controls
SummariseFindings
Levelofdetail
Clusterissues
Test controls
Establish state of controls
Detailfindings
Clearfindings
Verydetailed
Familiarisation
Review testing
Reporting
28
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
29
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 VG
  document,
• Adequacy of emergency response and recovery
  measures,

Example only Team leader to edit
30
Standards

• Laws and regulations of The Netherlands
• Permit requirements
• Current NAM (BUO) standards and procedures
• VG 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 95000
methodology
Example only Team leader to edit
31
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

32
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?

33
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?

34
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?

35
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?

36
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?

37
Managing risk
Eliminate
High
Avoid???
Likelymagnitudeof loss
REDUCE
Manage Alarp
Accept???
Low
High
Probability of occurrence
38
Insurance and Risk management
Business objectives?
Cause
Policy failing?
Recommendation
Organisation failing?
Review App. failing?
HSE Management System
Supervisory failing?
Procedural failing?
Problem
Detailed findings/deficiencies/problems
39
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)
40
Weakness Classification Matrix
A
B
C
D
E
Environ- ment
Repu- tation
Happens several times a year in the audited OU
Happens several times a year in the audited
facility
People
Assets
Severity
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
0
Manage for
continuous improvement
Slight injury or health effects
Slight impact
Slight damage
Slight effect
1
Minor injury or health effects
Minor damage
Minor effect
Minor impact
2
Consider- able impact
Major injury or health effects
Local damage
Localised effect
3
Incorporate
risk reduction Measures
Single fatality or permanent total disability
Major damage
Major effect
National impact
4
Intolerable eliminate
Inter- national impact
Extensive damage
Multiple fatalities
Massive effect
5
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.
41
Weakness Classification Matrix
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.
42
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).
43
Risk to Assets
44
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.
45
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.
46
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.
47
Bow-tie Concept
Harm to people 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
48
HSE Risk Management
CONTRACTOR
COMPANY
SAFETY / HSE CASE

• 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
49
Contractor HSE

• What is contracted?
• equipment and personnel
• specified product or service
• Contractor HSE management system
• Pre-qualification can contractor meet all HSE
  reqs?
• 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

50
Managing HSE Risk
OU
Contractor
HSE-MS
HSE-MS
interfacedocuments
Rig specificHSE Case
HSE Case
contractualrequirementsHSE Plan
Manageworkplacehazards
Manageworkplacehazards
51
Documented systems e.g. for drilling operations
industry guidance
Company
Contractor
Common
Policy and vision
?
HSE-MS
HSE-MS
processes (high level)
ContractHSERequirements
Departmental MS
HSE-Case forEquipment
Site Addendum
HSE-CaseforCompany Operation
processes (detailed)
Interface Document
Workplace hazard management system
Workplace hazard management system
task level
52
Report - Contents
Chapter 1 Mgt Summary
Chapter 2 Audit admin.
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
53
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 FG
  system likely affected

54
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?

55
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?

56
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?

57
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?

58
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?
59
Work Site
60
Deficiencies
Policy Deficiency?
Control Deficiency?
Control Lateral?
Control Lateral?
Detail Lateral?
Detail Deficiency
Detail Lateral?
Detail Lateral?
61
Findings

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

62
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

63
Generic QuestionsEquipment 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?

64
Generic QuestionsCompetence Aspects

• Are job needs defined?
• Are each individuals 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?

65
Generic QuestionsProcedural 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?

66
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

67
Interviewing - Pairing

• Each auditor paired
• to witness deficiencies
• to confirm adequacy
• to question the others assumptions
• to minimise misunderstandings between interviewer
  and interviewee

68
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 dont 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 !
69
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 interviewees background
• Use open questions and listen to replies
• Avoid judgments, but do not condone
• Do not argue or attack

70
Report - Contents
Chapter 1 Mgt Summary
Chapter 2 Audit admin.
Chapter 4 - HSE in Business
Chapter 3 - HSE- MS
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
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

71
ReportObjectives
Issues, effects, causes identified
Practicablerecommendations corrective action

• Opinion onadequacy ofcontrol framework

For auditee(s) and for management
72
Report - Text Handling
Team Author
Team Author
Team Author
1st Draft
Critic
Critic
2nd Draft
Team Discussion
Auditee
Auditee
Report
73
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

74
Report - Text Drafting

• 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
75
Report - Text Drafting
Tips and hints

• Write everything in style Normal.
• Dont 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. Dont waste your/our time.
76
Report - Actions

• Stand Alone, Clear Concise
• 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

77
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

78
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 4.1.1 (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 4.1.1(b) (5) Include
Riser leak risk and detection system in the
Safety Case. Action (A)H 4.1.1(c) (7)
Develop a maintenance programme for riser leak
detection equipment.
79
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
3.8.4(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 3.8.4(b) (8) Adhere to
procedures for establishing incident SR
improve level of contractor management
participation in incident investigations. Ther
e 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 3.8.4(c) (8) Implement a near miss
reporting system.
80
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.

81
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.

82
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.

83
SHELL-SPEAK - 1

• FREQUENT
• When I remember
• REGULAR
• When the Boss remembers
• AD HOC
• When Im 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
• Ill watch but Im not responsible ...
• unless it works!

SIPM - EPO/65
84
SHELL-SPEAK - 2

• CO-ORDINATE
• They get the work, I get the credit
• SUPERVISE
• As with Co-ordinate, but Im bigger than them
• DEVELOP AWARENESS
• It may happen anyway if it does I get the credit
• ACTIVELY ENCOURAGE
• Ill clap my hands it shows Im awake.
• AUTHORIZE
• Wheres my rubber stamp?
• SUPPORT
• Ill read it before I stamp it.

SIPM - EPO/65
85
SHELL-SPEAK - 3

• INITIATE, ESTABLISH, etc.
• 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
• Ill have my secretary do something.

SIPM - EPO/65
86
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)

87
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
• 60 -90 minute sessions
• Anyone may call for time-out

88
Audit Report Schedule
Report Complete
The Hague
Example only Team leader to edit
100
Teameditingsummary
50
10
1
6
13
18
Audit Days
89
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.

90
Global Checks

• Spell check
• 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)

91
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)

92
Audit opinion
Overall Opinion Satisfactory / Unsatisfactory
93
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.


-
- -
94
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
95
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
96
Linking Audit to Business Controls
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
97
Classified recommendations per HSE-MS element
This is an example only. Team leader to modify as
needed
Management Review
Classification
Audit
Low
Implement Monitor
Medium
Stand, Procs D/C
Planning
High
HEMP
Serious
Resources Comp
Org. Resp
Policy Strat. Obj
Leadership Commitment
0
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.
98
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
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
no. of recommendations
99
Schedule
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
18
19
12
13
14
15
16
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
X
Opening Presentation
X
Briefing by NAM
X
X
"Crash" course in auditing
X
Assign tasks
X
Study material
X
Develop quests interviews
X
X
X
Site visits
X
X
X
X
X
X
Interviews facts verification
X
X
X
X
X
Discuss findings with team
X
X
X
Discuss findings with auditee
X
X
Report writing verification
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
100
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

101
Team Leader role
Avoidimmaterial