SPE 86625

Open Safety Dialogue (OSD), Dialogue, Delivery and Commitment

Terje Lvby and Tor Alrik Dahl, Statoil ASA

Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at The Seventh SPE International Conference on
Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production held in Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, 2931 March 2004.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Mr. Alan Hammer QAC Manager,
Operations Coflexip Stena Offshore. Mr. Stacy P. Payne,
Manager International HS&E, Global Marine. Dr. Mark
Fleming, Chartered Psychologist The Keil Centre. They all
shared extensively from their vast knowledge and experience,
and provided both encouragement and guidance at the outset
of our project. We truly believe that their valuable input so far
has enabled us to avoid the worst pitfalls in such programs.
Proposal
This paper describes the introduction of a management tool for
behavior modification implemented in Statoils E&P operations
over the past two years.
A large number of executives, managers and supervisors1 have
been trained, in small groups, to use a structured methodology
for work site interaction with staff aimed at reducing at risk
behavior in our plants and facilities. Our training program
have been highly standardized and at the same time focused on
stimulation of dialogue and creation of consensus amongst the
participants.
Our Open Safety Dialogue (OSD) introduction program has
been conducted in the shortest possible time span. Each
supervisor has been put under mild pressure to apply the OSD
methodology at completion of her/his training.
We will briefly describe the OSD methodology, our training
program and the tools and techniques we have developed and
applied to achieve our objectives.

Supervisor is used as a generic term for executives,

managers, supervisors and foremen in the rest of the text.

The main objective is to share our experiences with respect to:

Culture conflicts encountered
How to ensure usage and compliance
Reporting and statistics
Managerial style elements
Opposing forces
Employee reactions
The requirements and tools for continued pressure and long
term commitment
Surprises and rewards
We will also present our plans for OSD follow up activities
and our related peer program; which are now in progress.
OSD methodology
As in most behavioral safety programs we apply elements of
scientific psychology, labeled as coaching, in our program.
The central element of OSD is that two supervisors invite
employees who are at worki to engage in an open, honest and
friendly dialogue aimed at having the employees themselves
realize and express their at risk behaviors, as well as the
potentional consequences to themselves, with respect to
ongoing work at the actual work sites.
It is mandatory for the supervisors in an OSD to demonstrate a
100 % no blame attitude. This in recognition of the fact that a
significant percentage of individual at risk behaviors are
unconscious, and to avoid provoking a counterproductive
defensive reaction from the employees.
The dialogue is closed with a formal agreement of behavioral
change, when such changes are required. These agreements
are followed up. Supervisors will not use OSD in situations
where they observe gross violations of safety rules and
regulations that qualify directly for disciplinary action.
Dupont have, in a recent report to Statoilr1, stated: It is
clearly recognized that the OSD program is a copy of previous
versions of Duponts STOP for Supervisors program.
Even though our program and STOP, and a series of similar
programs, have the same basic foundation in psychology we
beg to differ from this is a copy of assessment
We have sourced our methodology from several different
existing programs (some of them recognized in industry as
based on Duponts HSE programs; such as STOP, START,
ABS, ASA etc.) as well as published papers and reports.

It was however imperative to our objective to tailor our final

solution both to complement existing corporate HSE standards
and systems, as well as to be adapted to the Norwegian work
culture.
We feel that this is clearly acknowledged in Duponts report
where it is stated. It is, however, recognized that as an
internally developed program there are a number of variances,
both in terms of concept and implementation when compared
with Dupont best practice. (We will identify some of our
variances from Dupont best practice throughout this paper.)
Training program
Our formal training is conducted as a one day course at sites /
plants and offshore platforms with a small group of
supervisors per instructor. The theory part addresses both the
deficiencies of previously applied HSE supervisory techniques
and the reasons why we are convinced that correctly applied
coaching (i.e. OSD) will have the desired effect, over time.
Our structured dialogue methodology is then introduced step
by step. Each step is justified by referring both back to the
participants own knowledge and experiences and psychology
explained in previous sessions.
The theoretical part of the training is concluded by role-plays
based on photos of realistic work situations selected from the
course participants own areas of responsibility.
The practical part of the course requires the participants to
engage in real life dialogues based on what they have learned
so far. Each of the participants typically gets the benefit of
participating in 2 4 OSDs, under instructor supervision and
guidance.
All the course participants are invited to establish their own
personal target for how many OSD they will try to participate
in during the coming year, at course closure. They do this by
filling in an agreement with the CEO of our company at the
end of the course. (Fig.1). (The instructor copies these for data
recording, and the participants keep their original agreement
as a course diploma).

SPE 86625

The OSD training is complemented by a documentation

package. This is only distributed to course participants. It was
not intended, nor developed, as self-study documentation but
as a reminder and supplement to what was explained during
the course.
Our experiences
The project team who initiated this program in late 2001
highlighted that the only true measure of success for a
behavioral modification program would be a continuous and
significant reduction in LTA and injury frequency over a long
period of time (years).
It was also realized that a broad and significant change in
safety culture was a critical success criteria. And that such
changes require both top-down and across the board focus
and involvement, as well as time.
The project teams postulate was that it would take at least 3
5 years of dedicated work before true and significant results
would materialize. It is therefore far to early in the project to
assess and report measurable (true) achievements.
We have however already observed several interesting issues
we will like to share with our readers.
Although most of these observations ()2 are of empirical
nature, we do believe we are in a unique position to state some
of these as facts because a low number of instructorsii have
trained 3700 supervisors in small groups over a period of less
than two years. The same instructors have also coached a
significant number of the same supervisors in use of OSD in
their work environment. (This coaching typically follows 8
10 months after their initial OSD training).
As we have trained and coached a large number of supervisors
from our main contractor companies in addition to our own
employees, representing a multitude of professional
backgrounds, nationalities, and corporate cultures, we truly
feel that our observations are representative not only for
different companies but also for different nationalitiesiii.
Our observations and experiences are in other words of a multi
nationality and a multi company nature and therefore not in
any regard only limited to our own company.
Culture conflicts encountered
Norwegian organizational culture r2
The overall Norwegian business organization culture and
managerial styles have been developed and refined over the
last 5 6 decades. A society founded on broadly accepted
social democratic principles has had a strong impact on the
way we organize managerial structures and workforce
relations in the Norwegian industry.

Fig. 1 Personal OSD ambition agreement

We have used this marker () throughout the rest of our text

to identify our main observation- / solution statements.

SPE 86625

The supervisors and employees in Norway are considered

equal, particularly with respect to matters that directly impact
the workforce.
Unions and collaborative bodies within the organization are
considered to be viable channels for appeal of managerial
decisions.
The supervisors true authority is to a large extend dependent
on the individuals professional skills and contact network and
not so much on rank and position.
Supervisors may as a result of this be questioned, and even
interrogated, from multiple levels and directions in the
organization, even on minor issues.
Direct orders and demand for loyal adherence to procedures,
standards, and (to a degree) even laws, are out of fashion in
Norway as involvement and consensus are the overall
recommended managerial styles in our country.
--We also have, to a large extent, abandoned the use of
disciplinary actions in enforcing good safety regulations and
procedures.
It is generally believed in Norway that Norwegians are able to
practice open and candid communication techniques in all
matters at all levels (as long as it does not involve very
personal feelings and relations).
We were therefore greatly surprised to find that most
Norwegian supervisors reverted to the old HSE inspector and
fault finding technique when their objective was to guide
their employees, in a positive manner, to assess their own at
risk behavior and the potentional worse personal impact, if an
incident happened.
The much praised openness and informality in Norway do
not ensure that supervisors are visible at the work sites.
Steadily increasing parts of their time are spent as desk
jockeys, or in meetings. Even when the message from the
companys executive board, combined with the OSD program,
are that more visible leadership is required supervisors
themselves tend to ease back into the same office work most
of them claim to detest.
We know, from direct communication, that this lack of visible
leadership in our plants is both observed and of concern to our
CEO.
How to ensure usage and compliance
Statoil has, as most other companies, experienced previous
well-intended and important HSE initiatives being received
with enthusiasm and motivation both by management, unions
and the work force before they fizzle into a halt for no obvious
reason.
We also had some knowledge about problems in other
organizations behavior modification projects, where each
supervisor was assigned a quota to perform within a set

timeframe. (i.e. projects which turned into pure number

games)
We knew before this project commenced that most of our
supervisors felt that they already had their plate more than
filled with priority tasks. We therefore had to secure across the
organization priority and dedication to the OSD challenge,
while we at the same time did not have available resources to
conduct ongoing on site monitoring of progress and
performance.
It was decided that we would require the supervisors to
report each conducted dialogue. In order to counteract
negative reactions, funded on previous experiences we had to
avoid some of the traps we, and others, had fallen into in
earlier projects:
We require only confirmation of an OSD being
conducted
We made the reporting as efficient as possible
We do not require any reporting of observations iv
We measure performance per organizational unit
only, not by individual supervisor v
We enable extensive reporting for those who so
desire.
We prohibit identification of workforce participants
We established a long term program of coaching and
verification
We experienced a lot of bickering and moaning from
supervisors about yet another reporting system at the outset.
The claim was that they would do the dialogues regardless of
reporting or not, and that the quality of the OSDs would be
better if they did not have to worry about having to report
them.
We therefore waited patiently and did not enforce reporting
initially. Each unit was questioned about their progress after
approx. 3 months, and they admitted, even without probing,
that progress had not been particularly good.
Senior
Management then demanded active reporting; and the worst
objections to this were silenced.
We have been extremely surprised to discover that
supervisor teams in our production facilities and even groups
of supervisors on individual shifts have developed their own
standards of OSD methodology, which in some cases even are
in direct conflict with the detailed and justified instructions
which are given during our structured formal training or in the
documentation. And whats even worse; they claim that their
approach is based on and consistent with the same sources.
We have, based on this observation, decided that OSD
instructors periodically will visit all plants/shifts and perform
coaching of individual supervisors by participating in OSDs
on one-to-one basis.

Its our overall plan to increase this target in a controlled

fashion on an annual basis until we reach a company wide
OSD factor of at least 7.
OSD factor 01.11.2003 for
Offshore platforms and onshore plants E&P - NG

2,5

The score limit for year 2003 is set to 2 (meaning 2 and over) to reduce the risk of stimulating a pure numbers competition .

1,5

0,5

Pla
nt B
On
sho
re b
Pr o
a se
jec
( s)
tB
fr o
m
01.0
6.0
3

01
.0 5
.03

6.0
3

orm

fro
m

2 4.0

Pla
nt
A

Pla
tf

01
.04
.03

R fr
om

orm
Pla
tf

Q
orm

fro
m

orm
Pla
tf

Pr o
jec
tA

Pla
tf

3.0
3

orm

2 4.0

Pla
tf

orm

orm
Pla
tf

Pla
tf

10
.03
.03

ro m

fro
m
M

Nf

orm

orm

Pla
tf

Pla
tf

5.0
3

om

01 .0
2 .0

orm

15.0
I f ro
m

orm

orm
Pla
tf

Pla
tf

J fr

G
orm

Pla
tf

orm
Pla
tf

Pla
tf

orm

Pla
tf

orm

C
orm

Pla
tf

orm

0
Pla
tf

We have facilitated extensive reporting features and follow up

assistance for supervisors who want to utilize these. We do
also allow for manual recording and reporting through
assistants (secretaries, planners etc.) if required. The only
thing that is not facilitated, or permitted, is identification of the
employee(s) the supervisors talked with.
We have received much praise for the simplicity of our Lotus
Notes reporting solution.

orm

The reporting is done through a Lotus Notes database form

(Fig 2) where the few mandatory fields are clearly highlighted.
The reporting is made as efficient as possible, and we have
proved through tests that even a first time user needs less than
30 seconds to record their first OSD.

Pla
tf

The only mandatory reporting of an OSD consists of date,

time, plant, area (in plant) and the names of the two
supervisors who initiated the dialogue.

activity between plants/org. units regardless of size as well as

to establish the same target for any level of our organization.
We have established a factor of 2 as a target for the first year
in full operation (2003) and do not report any achievement
higher than this target. (To circumvent any best guy in class
competition between units).
The OSD factor will be/is included in the performance- /
bonus contracts for plant managers.

Pla
tf

Reporting and statistics

We have verified through targeted testing that extraordinary
tasks like OSDs will not get done in large organizations unless
a reporting is required and controlled.

SPE 86625

No. of OSDs

1191

1261

1176

800

540

398

1203

955

104

340

238

598

320

449

237

Factor = No of OSDs per unit/plant divided by man-years employed (same period ).

10.11.2003

475

139

154

378

153

397

205

143

47

Offshore man-year = 1615 hours Onshore man-year = 1820 hours.

OSD 2003 OSD TEAM E&P N HSE

Fig. 3 Monthly executive report, OSD factor

The project team has started assessing which type of statistical

presentations may be useful in the future.
Although it is far to early to interpret any of this as significant
measures we believe that we already see some initial
confirmation of the fact that you have to achieve a minimum
critical mass of OSDs before you can expect to see stable
and positive results from such efforts (Fig 4).
Injury frequency - OSD Factor
Injury ferquency

OSD Factor

30

2
1,8

Fig. 2 Database reporting form

Our company has other systems where the business units in

Statoil report their manpower employed per period, in order to
facilitate multiple types of frequency reporting.
This combination permitted us to develop a management
reporting scheme where we on a monthly basis present the
achieved OSD factor for each plant/org. unit. This shows the
number of OSDs factorized over the number of man-years
employed in the same period. (Fig. 3)

25

1,6
1,4

20

1,2

15

1
0,8

10

0,6
0,4

0,2

0
jan.03

feb.03

mar.03

apr.03

Platform A

mai.03

jun.03

jul.03

Platform B

Fig. 4 A very preliminary observation of results

We dont have any other reporting scheme for the project.

The OSD factor enables the executives to compare OSD

aug.03

sep.03

SPE 86625

Managerial style elements

Our executives and senior managers lecture about safety in
large groups in the correct manner; - they know very well
what to say. But to demonstrate and verify the same gospel by
walking around and stimulate the work force directly has
proved to be quite another and far more challenging task.
This in spite of the fact that the same executives, during OSD
training, agree that the personal positive dialogue, practiced at
work sites may be more effective, also in a wider perspective.
We feel that the paradox most executives face in this regard is
that there always are so many major business issues and tasks
at hand that a few brief and short (although extremely
important) dialogues about worksite safety all times runs a
high risk of being slightly delayed and postponed. Then, as all
executives work periods and site visit programs have a
tendency to be overloaded, it ends up with a repetitive
personal promise of doing a better job in this area at the next
opportunity.
We do however know that our executives are aware of this
situation and are actively doing their best to facilitate
opportunities for OSDs in their schedules during site visits.
Supervisors who have an extensive professional background
within their own area of responsibility seem to be the ones
who struggle the most to make these dialogues about their
employees personal safety natural. This in spite of the fact that
they often have both good and close personal relationships
with their colleagues. They revert very quickly into a dialogue
about purely technical topics or the old finger pointing as
soon as they sense that the communication gets a little
strained.
We have in all our OSD training and coaching highlighted
the fact that it would generate a high risk for overall program
failure if we try to stimulate OSD activities by introducing
quotas per supervisor. Dialogues of this nature is not
something all supervisors, as well as employees, will feel
comfortable with initially. To neglect important this fact will
only stimulate counterproductive reactions and reporting. We
feel that we have successfully argued this case to our top
executives, but are still engaged in an ongoing struggle to
prevent some representatives of our middle management from
applying such negative performance measures within their
area of responsibility.
Quite a number of the supervisors see dialogues such as this
as a strange sort of competition between themselves and their
crewmembers. As a result they engage in pure power plays
where they have to find something at fault (the auditor
syndrome) even when there is nothing truly wrong in the
situation.
The OSD represents an extremely simple, and easy to
understand and justify, dialogue format. In spite of this it
appears to be extremely difficult to learn and practice by
seasoned supervisors.
At the same time when we observe this hard struggle to
learn and be confident in OSD practice by our supervisors

during the practical part of OSD training and coaching we are

surprised by requests for shorter training, light versions and
other quick fix solutions with respect to the formal training
from the very same supervisors who struggles the most.
Opposing forces
We have for a number of years worked diligently to make
individual workers truly realize that they themselves are the
persons most responsible (in charge) for their own personal
safety. It appears now that we, as an undesired side effect of
this effort, may have reduced the feeling of direct
responsibility for the same issues on the supervisors part.
We have also experienced company wide initiatives for cost
cutting and manpower reductions like all the other oil
companies in the world. This has required resources for
project work, process changes, changes in the supervisors
authority and responsibilities and empowerment of workforce
versus supervision.
Introduction of new and powerful
corporate IT systems, which at the same time are more
demanding on the end users, are also tying the supervisors
more than to their offices and PCs. These developments have
reduced the available time for supervisors to visit worksites
and engage themselves in ongoing work activities for their
crews. We expected this to have a significant negative impact
on our project, but this has failed to materialize. On contrary
it seems that the new OSD initiative where supervisors more
frequently visit employees in the plant area and focus on
personal safety and display honest concern for each individual,
to a degree have reduced the anxiety which could have been
caused by the corporate cost cutting ambitions. We have also
recorded frequent feedback, from both parties, to the fact that
OSDs are welcomed as a missed closer level of ongoing
contact between our employees and their supervisors.
Executives, managers and supervisors strongly agree during
OSD training that our failure to use disciplinary action in a
correct fashion as a tool to enforce important safety rules and
procedures is a major obstacle to the development of a good
safety culture in our company.
We have an established practice of handling a few extreme
safety violations through disciplinary actions, but at the same
time have neglected to pursue people who repetitively violate
mandatory safety precautions and procedures through an
orderly application of our disciplinary procedure. It is a
known fact that we, as a result, have people in our
organization who choose to behave in a fashion with respect to
safety where they are a real danger both to themselves as well
as their colleagues.
This has also been identified in the Dupont report mentioned
earlierr1 and is now an important action item in our plan
for 2004.
A significant number of the course participants are very
active during training, subscribe to all the evaluations and
arguments presented, are enthusiastic about the potentional of
the OSD methodology and give the training very high scores

on the course evaluation. (Overall average approx 5,2. On a 1

6 scale).
Even so, a significant number of the supervisors who give the
course top score only commit themselves to carry out 2 5
OSDs per year at course closure.
Employee reactions
The work force is in general very positive to the OSD
experiences they have encountered, partly because they have
truly missed interactions with their supervisors (visits) in the
workplace.
The unions safety delegates are voicing a joint strong opinion
stating that OSD have been a significant and very positive new
approach to safety work in our company.
We have however, through the grapevine, received some,
hopefully isolated, observations of rather disastrous dialogues.
Observations of this nature which have reached the project
team members in person, seems to originate with disloyal
supervisors who choose to display their discontent and
disagreement with the OSD initiative to subordinates instead
of addressing and resolving this with their superiors.

The requirements and tools for continued pressure and

long term commitment
The most important factor, at this stage in the program, in
order to secure long-term commitment and success for our
behavioral safety program, will be to demonstrate solid and
personal top management commitment and engagement.
This is the area where we have struggled the most in the last
two years. Our executives are both dedicated to the program
and actively demanding supervisor performance and OSD
reporting. They monitor the OSD factor on a monthly basis
and both challenge and praise individual managers and units
through direct communication.
We know that our executives are quite good at doing OSDs,
when they manage to find the opportunity and time to perform
them. And it is greatly appreciated by the work force when
they observe members of the executive board and company
presidents through OSDs both being interested in their work
and cautioning them in a friendly manner to take care of
themselves confirming the corporate safety credo We do
always have the required time to work in a safe and controlled
manner
The paradox is that with all these immensely important
factors our executives really struggle to find the time and
opportunity to carry out a few short dialogues with such
potentional and impact, even when they visit plants and sites.
This dilemma have now the required executive attention and
our OSD project team have been requested both to
continuously challenge them on their performance in this
regard as well as to facilitate arrangements where they actively
can demonstrate their OSD dedication. We are therefore
confident that we will see a significant positive development

SPE 86625

with respect to visible behavioral change commitment from

key members of our corporate executive committee.
Surprises and rewards
The biggest surprise has been that we completely underestimated the training requirements. We settled for an one-day
formal course to secure that even the busiest supervisors could
find the time to attend such limited training and because we
thought it would be more than sufficient time to learn to use
and practice a very simple and productive communication
technique.
We train the supervisors to carry out a friendly dialogue with
people they know, which should last no more than 5 minutes,
through the use of four basic questions (which we even
provide on a memory jogger card). As basis for the practical
training we establish a joint understanding as to the basis for
OSD as a powerful tool to improve safety. Understandings the
majority of our course participants subscribes to, and is
enthusiastic about.
In spite of this positive foundation we have experienced that
our supervisors struggle, and require far more training than we
expected when we developed the program.
We are convinced that this to a large degree is caused by the
fact that we previously have trained our supervisors so well in
pure faultfinding and finger pointing methods. Methods
they have practiced for years. We completely overlooked this
need for clean out training, and have to rectify this now,
when the initial OSD training should be approaching an end.
Although we knew that our supervisors over time have been
turned more and more into office workers we did not realize to
which degree this had removed them from hands on
knowledge about what actually goes on at the work sites.
Quite a few of our supervisors have had major eye openers
after they have started practicing OSD.
We are also recording a very high degree of appreciation from
the work force confirming that they have actually missed the
contact with their supervisors out in the field (at their work
sites).
An observation by the OSD instructors, which have
increased in magnitude as the program have progressed, is the
lack of overall consistency in our companys and employees
safety focus. While we consider ourselves quite good in this
regard in our plants and on offshore installations we often talk
about this being carried over to the rest of our organization
as well as our employees private sphere (homes etc.) 24
hours HSE focus. As OSD instructors, traveling around in
the different environments and also talking to supervisors and
staff about their off hours safety focus, we collect the most
incredible observations and stories showing that such safety
carry over effects often are only marginal and even
nonexistent. Gross at risk behaviors, that would have been
addressed immediately at our plants, are often neglected when
they occur in and around our office buildings, even by visiting
plant supervisors. Plant workers and supervisors, who are
recognized as very safety conscious at work, tell numerous
stories about near misses at home due to their own at risk
behavior, within areas they would never fail in at work etc.

SPE 86625

And a number of our supervisors, who know that they should

lead by example at work, admits they tend to do otherwise
when they are at home with their own family.
Safety is not something which is transmitted, it has to be
focused at and worked on at all times, everywhere
One of our immediate and great rewards have been to be
present during OSDs where the dialogue technique used
correctly have revealed unseen but significant at risk behaviors
with a potentional for severe injuries; and where the
employees are truly grateful for having been made aware of
the dangers.
Another reward has been meeting supervisors who states
that this is the best professional experience and leadership
training they have encountered in their professional lives.
We also consider the support and engagement from our
CEO and corporate executive committee members, and their
commitment to long-term focus and push for this project, as a
reward for the project team. As said above, we would like to
see this extended to more direct OSD activities on their part as
well. We do however expect to see a positive and significant
change in this in the near future.
Future plans and activities
OSD follow up activities
We will increase our OSD coaching in order to compensate
both the requirements for more practical training and to
counteract the tendency to develop sub standards locally in our
company.
We will develop and conduct opinion polls aimed at collecting
better information as to how OSD is experienced both by the
workforce and the supervisors. This will be anonymous polls
where we only aim to be able to identify whether the
respondent is a supervisor or employee, and at which plant the
respondent are employed.
We are already in the process of developing an OSD
Newsletter. This is aimed at easing ongoing communication
with our supervisors regarding OSD, and at the same time a
vehicle to enable communication about our company standard
as to the methodology and practice of OSD.
We aim to start a series of motivation efforts. The first
objective is to communicate directly by letter (in a positive
manner!) with supervisors who might believe they have been
completely forgotten about how we might help them to
achieve their personal objectives with regard to the number of
OSDs they aimed to do at the end of training.
The next stage will be to give some sort of recognition to
plants and departments who have achieved the annual OSD
factor and even to give the individuals of these units some sort
of recognition.
The CEO has requested that a parallel program is developed to
train and motivate all senior support personnel (engineers,

purchasers, corporate management, etc.) who through their

actions, or lack of such, may impact the safety of others. As
an important part of this program version we will also increase
our focus at office and off hours safety for all company
employees and environments.
We are also looking into ways and means to introduce some
sort of competition into the OSD program. As we, at all costs,
will avoid stimulating a situation where we focus on the
number of OSDs per individual supervisor our current
thoughts are on rewarding The good OSD or The OSD
with the best experience transfer potentional etc.
Peer program
The project proposal for OSD underscored that this is a top
down program, and stated that it had to be complemented by a
peer program as a crucial part of an overall behavioral safety
program.
The project plan proposed that the peer program was phased in
approximately 1,5 year after the start OSD training. Such a
delay was required both in order to secure that OSD would be
well established before the peer program started, and to avoid
depleting OSD for crucial resources before it reached the half
way mark.
The peer programs objectives include reduction of
communication barriers between colleagues with respect to
dialogue about at risk behaviors, and openness about private
matters that may impact individuals focus and safety. It also
include awareness training as to injury consequence
assessment by documented experiences and highlights the
importance of both taking care of each other and staying
focused so as to ensure that all individuals are going home
from work in equal or better shape as when they came.
Statoils safe behavior peer program is now ongoing.
According to current plans it will engage more than 10,000
company and contract employees over a period of 2 years
participating in large conventions of 2 days duration
complemented by a 4 year program of follow up activities.
The supervisors who have completed OSD training are
important role models and resources in this peer program
There is tight collaboration between the two programs but
because of the unexpected and extended demand for OSD
training a separate project group is in charge our safe behavior
peer program
Afterthought
Old habits die hard,
regardless of whether its managerial styles
or at risk behaviors at the work sites.

In order to have success in a behavioral safety program

both must be changed

References
r1. HSE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION for Statoil ASA,
Stavanger; Norway, March 2003;
(Internal report made for Statoil by Dupont)
r2. Culture and HSE Management, Sigurd K. Berg, Aker
Offshore Partner;
SPE 73993, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc. 2002.
Endnotes
i

This is one of the areas where we deviate from the way we

have seen Duponts STOP program being practiced. We have
OSD dialogues with people at work, regardless of whether we
observe anything wrong or not. This defuses any anxiety on
the part of the workforce regarding supervisors interrupting
them for such dialogues when they are working.
ii

A very small number of instructors do all the OSD training

in Statoil. The objective is to secure that we present a
consistent message and a structured methodology with
standard elements. We do not permit cascade training in the
OSD program. (This is another area where we deviate from
Duponts standard)
iii

We have trained Norwegians, Danes, Swedes, Germans,

Dutchmen, Portuguese, Spaniards, Americans, Englishmen,
Scots and Chinese from more than 30 different companies.

iv

This is an area were we clearly deviate from Duponts

best practice.
We do not collect STOP cards and process them by HSE
committees etc.
We are of the opinion that the intended result of the dialogue
(that the individual workers realize that they should focus on
eliminating their own at risk behaviors) far outweighs any
potentional for organizational learning through committees.
Another reason for this policy is that we feel that a practice
of handling such reports in HSE committees will pose a high
risk of violation of our no name no blame ambition.
We have another incident reporting system (Synergy) that aim
to facilitate important experience transfer and we do not feel
that its advisable to have multiple reporting and
administrative systems with the same objectives.
v

We have established a measure of performance where we

compute the number of OSDs per man-year employed for the
same period. For our first year of full operation we set the
target for all operational units to factor 2. It is our ambition to
increase this target over time until we reach an OSD factor of
at least 7 for all units.
The individual ambitions of each supervisor are only known to
themselves, and the project team. It is never reported to
management.
We encourage unit managers to apply balanced measures of
motivation (leadership) and recognize and respect the fact
that there are always different strokes for different folks, and
that this technique is something most, but not all, supervisors
will be able to utilize in a constructive manner.

SPE 86625