SPE 111961

Human Factors in Drill and Well Operations—The Drillers’ Work Situation

Hilde Heber, Siri Wiig, and Arne M. Enoksen, Petroleum Safety Authority

Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production held in Nice, France, 15–17
April 2008.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to present the results from a questionnaire conducted as a part of a Human Factors project within
drilling and well operations on the Norwegian continental shelf (NCS). The main purpose of conducting the project and the
survey has been for the drilling contractors themselves to gain insight into risk factors associated with the drillers' work, and to
set their own priorities for implementing improvement measures. The project was managed by the Petroleum Safety Authority,
Norway (PSA), and assisted by the Det Norske Veritas (DNV). This paper reports the results from a survey of the drillers’
work situation.
The PSA project related to Human Factors in drilling and well operations started in 2005. The initial work revealed that the
work pressure on the driller could be unreasonably high. The PSA started working on Human Factors in drilling and well
operations in 2005. As a result, the PSA developed a questionnaire regarding the drillers work situation. A total of 187 drillers
on 34 facilities responded to the questionnaire. As a vital aspect of the study, the PSA requested each of the drilling
contractors to write a summary of the questionnaire responses and to prepare a short presentation of potential measures
identified by the company to follow up.
Several factors influencing the drillers’ work situation were revealed in the survey. The drillers reported positive feedback
regarding the interaction between management and drillers; and between colleagues. Results demonstrated challenges
regarding the drillers’ work situation related to managerial aspects; workload and responsibility; competence and
understanding of risk; procedures; physical design of the drilling area; drilling system design and alarm management.

Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to present the results from a questionnaire conducted as a part of a Human Factors project within
drilling and well operations on the NCS. The main purpose of conducting the project and the survey has been for the drilling
contractors themselves to gain insight into risk factors associated with the drillers' work and to set their own priorities for
implementing improvement measures. The project was managed by the Petroleum Safety Authority, Norway (PSA), and
assisted by the Det Norske Veritas (DNV). This paper reports the results from a survey of the drillers’ work situation.
It is generally recognized that serious incidents in industrial systems usually involve one or several Human Factors (HF)
related causes (Reason 1997, Rollenhagen 1997, PSA 2005). Offshore drilling and well operations are safety critical activities
carried out in high risk environments, with potentially devastating consequences to the offshore workforce and to the
environment and property (Aase, et al. 2005; Skjerve & Lauridsen 2006). According to PSA’s incident register in the database
“risk level on the NCS” the Human Factors issues, such as management support, competence, training, and design are frequent
causal and contributing factors to serious incidents in the drilling areas on the Norwegian Continental Shelf. PSA
investigations of major incidents demonstrate the causative role of the HF, both in the blunt and sharp end of operations (PSA
2005). As a consequence, the PSA has for the last ten years taken several initiatives to improve HF conditions, both in
operation and design of safety critical work systems.
To obtain an improved understanding and overall perspective of the challenges within drilling activities, the PSA in 2005
requested information from the industry on their planned activities and improvements in human factors in drill operations. The
2 SPE 111961

responses showed that the main operational challenges were the following issues: Management; planning and cooperation;
work load; design/ lay out; competence; procedures and work routines; and communication. The human factors issues
uncovered through our first contact were more closely targeted through a broader survey of the drillers’ work situation. Our
approach was based on earlier successful use of questionnaires, survey methods, and interviews in uncovering and targeting
common industry HF challenges. Also, the use of such interactive methods provides information and guidance, allowing the
stakeholders from the industry and vendors to target improvement areas in a proactive manner (ref alarm paper).
In order to more specifically focus on some of the revealed challenges, a multi-disciplinary team including specialists in HF
and within well and drilling operation has contributed in a specific project, delimited to emphasize HF aspects related to the
drillers’ work situation. The driller leads the operation of the drill crew on the drill floor and manages the well control. The
drilling system is complex and requires attention to both monitoring the screens in the drill control cabin and lifting and
rotating systems on the drill floor.
The main purpose of conducting this project and the survey have been for the drilling contractors themselves to gain insight
into risk factors associated with the drillers' work and to set their own priorities for implementing measures, if needed.

The PSA’s approach to the Human Factors concept

The PSA is the primary regulatory body for Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) in the Norwegian petroleum industry. This
responsibility entails; establishing and enforcement of regulations, auditing, investigating, approval of consents and
exemptions and given industry guidance. PSA’s area of responsibility covers technical safety, occupational health and safety,
working environment, and welfare.
The International Ergonomic Association Human Factors (2000) has adopted the following definition of ergonomics (Helander
2006): Ergonomics (or human factors) is the scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of interactions among
humans and other elements of a system, and the profession that applies theory, principles, data and methods to design in order
to optimize human well-being and overall system performance.

In this report, the PSA approaches Human Factors (www.psa.no) with a systematic and holistic view, which includes the
application of methods and knowledge that can be utilized to evaluate and improve the interaction between humans,
technology, and organization. The purpose of applying HF in a working environment is to optimally contribute towards
achieving efficiency and prioritizing safety while taking into consideration abilities, limitations, and the needs of the people
who function in them. PSA’s objective regarding HF in the working environment context is to promote solutions that
optimizes efficiency and safety, and attended to the abilities, limitations and the needs of the people who function in them. The
interaction between human, technology, organization and environment is a critical factor to achieve the goals of safe and
effective drill and well operations. To do so, it is important to focus on the following factors (Rollenhagen 1997):
• Human issues: i.e. competence, abilities, needs, limitations, and human interaction
• Technology: i.e. design, functionality, usability, overall integration and how it supports
operators in their work situation.
• Organization: i.e. structure, support, manning, culture, management philosophies and management systems

Figure 1. demonstrates how PSA approaches HF. The figure illustrates the interfaces between different occupational
disciplines, organization and technology and how they are integrated (PSA 2006).
SPE 111961 3

Figure 1. PSA’s approach to the Human Factors concept.

Traditional approach Human Factors approach

-1Human Factors perspective

Method

Development of the questionnaire

In order to improve knowledge on the drillers work situation, drillers from three different drilling contractors were invited to
one days work shop with the PSA and the DNV. DNV developed an interview guide that was used in the workshop. The main
issues in the interview guide were items raised during the earlier work regarding Human Factors in drilling and well
operations, where the companies were asked to state the relevant challenges (PSA 2005). Based on previous activities between
PSA and the industry, and the aspects raised in the workshop, PSA and DNV developed a questionnaire to map how the
drillers perceive their own work situation. The questionnaire was then distributed to the participating drillers for comments.
Moreover, PSA performed a pilot audit offshore in 2006 where the questionnaire was tested. This audit regarded the drillers’
work situation. It was performed by a multidisciplinary team from PSA including specialists in HF and within well and drilling
operation. Four drillers, the drilling managers and the drill crew offshore were interviewed by the PSA to improve knowledge
of the drillers’ work situation. Subsequent to this audit, the questionnaire was slightly adjusted. Some irrelevant questions were
removed, while other issues, for instance regarding alarms, were included to improve the questionnaire.

The HF aspects addressed in the questionnaire were: Job demands; job control; driller`s nearest leader; driller`s role as a
leader; support from colleagues; procedures/work-descriptions; technical systems; role clarity; risk understanding;
meetings/planning; communication; training; physical conditions; and general questions. A total of 107 questions were
included in the questionnaire. The answers were given on a five grade scale ranging from “very seldom or never; quite seldom;
sometimes; quite often; very often or always”.

Carrying out the survey

In the spring of 2007, the PSA requested all nine drilling contractors operating on the Norwegian Continental Shelf to apply
the questionnaire and map how the drillers perceive their own work situation on at least one mobile and one fixed facility. The
PSA requested the following feedback from the drilling contractors:
• A summary of the questionnaire responses in their company
• Prepare a short presentation of potential measures and factors identified by the company to follow up
• Positive stories in the improvement work

Eight out of nine companies participated in the study. A total of 187 drillers on 34 facilities answered the questionnaire.
However, on the aspect regarding “general questions”, only drillers representing four of the companies responded to these
questions, implying that 142 out of 184 drillers answered the three general questions regarding sick leave (two questions) and
the feeling of being insecure during work (one question).

The feedback to the PSA from the companies represents the basis of this paper. The participating companies received feedback
from the PSA including comments linked to the company’s own results in which the company was responsible to follow up.
Moreover, all companies received a general report prepared by the PSA based on the results from all the participants. All of
4 SPE 111961

these activities were included due to the main purpose of the project which was related to the drilling contractors themselves
and enable them to gain insight into risk factors associated with the drillers' work, and to set their own priorities for
implementing measures when needed.

Analysis of results
The results were categorized according to the HF aspects addressed in the questionnaire. Advanced statistical tools to evaluate
the data are not applied in this general report due to the purpose of only examining general trends. A qualitative evaluation of
the entire questionnaire data material and the company's own summary reports was performed.

Methodological advantages and disadvantages

The questionnaire was developed in collaboration with the industry. This process will enable adjustments to be taken into
account according to comments from the representatives in order to improve the relevance of the questions and aspects
covered. Moreover, the survey as a part of the project was a method applied by the PSA in order to improve knowledge within
the industry regarding the drillers’ work situation. Not only the survey itself, but also the fact that the PSA requested a
summary report from each company and the feedback provided from the PSA to the companies after the study, were positive
methodological aspects that contributed to improved knowledge level and activities related to HF among the participating
companies. There are some methodological disadvantages regarding the difficulties related to stating an accurate response rate
due to lack of information from the participating companies on this aspect. Moreover, the questionnaire has not been applied
before, and has not been formally validated. These aspects imply limitations regarding the interpretation and analysis of the
results. The companies who performed the data collection could not compare their internal results to the other contributing
companies. The company could only compare their internal results to the total data material. Moreover, based on the results
the PSA could not reveal a specific installation within the participating companies. The PSA could only reveal trends and
challenges at a company level. This served the main purpose of the survey that was mapping overall trends and based on the
results, raise discussions and improvement activities within the participating companies.

Results

In the result section of the questionnaire the main issues are presented according to the following: Requirements, control and
clarity of job roles; Management and colleagues; Procedures/work description/work program; Physical working conditions;
Alarms and drilling systems; Understanding of risk; Meetings, planning and communication; and Training.

Requirements, control and clarity of job roles

The results revealed that the drillers know what is expected of them at work. Subsequent to their off periods, the drillers need
to adjust to a new environment and certain circumstances. However, most of them feel that they control their daily work
situation. The drillers rarely find their work tasks per say to be too difficult.

A key finding was that 54% of the drillers answered that they occasionally had too many work tasks. The actual job done by
drillers is demanding in the sense that there are factors that must be constantly monitored and handled upon. The results
showed that the drillers perceived that a substantial amount of time is spent on assigned work tasks, such as administrative
tasks including logging of the performed work operations. However, the drillers also comment that a lot of time is spent on
daily maintenance. In addition to their ordinary work tasks, the drillers often experience two main disruptive elements during
their working days, namely: telephone calls and people being in the driller's cabin. 23% of the drillers state that they
sometimes work so hard that they are pushing the safety limit. Moreover, 44% of the drillers answer that they quite often feel
locked in the driller’s chair; 34% of the drillers state that they sometimes lose concentration while seated and that they
occasionally have trouble staying awake throughout the entire shift. Most drillers respond that they get relieved when needed.
At the same time, 50% of the drillers state that it is not always possible to stop and take a break when they need one. It is also
worth noting that one-third of the drillers rarely speak up when they have too much to do. 74 out of 142 drillers who answered
the general question have felt insecure on one or more occasions due to critical conditions during drilling operations the last 12
months. Out of these, nine drillers felt insecure on more than six occasions in a job context.

One driller said the following regarding the question of job demands:
”In connection with hectic/critical situations there are a lot of inquiries via telephone and radio. The driller's cabin might
be full of personnel, which can be a distraction. Downtime is a burden as we have to do everything possible to avoid it,
while at the same time, we cannot control situations involving equipment failure, computer problems, etc.”
SPE 111961 5

Management and colleagues

Regarding the managerial and collegial aspects, the results show that the 78% of the drillers experience that the drilling
management was involved in the work operation. A total of 84% of the drillers also experience that they in general receive
sufficient support and help from the management when needed. Still 15% responded that they at times did not get enough
support. The drillers experience that the drilling management prioritizes meetings prior to the actual drilling operations.
Moreover, 24% of the drillers responded a lack of feedback regarding the work performed and 40% answered that they did get
feedback sometimes.

Only a few drillers report that they have sufficient time and resources to fulfil their role as supervisor. Despite the time
pressure, they assess their own efforts in supervising as good. They are particularly concerned with ensuring that the drilling
crew has a good understanding of risk, both in general and in particular related to the work operation. The drillers in all of the
companies feel that there is a good environment on the shifts and that they help and support each other. One driller commented
on the support from management and colleagues as follows:

”When the workload is high, recognition of this would be appreciated. Our leaders do not add pressure to speed up work.
They say …take the time required to perform the operation safely and with the desired outcome”.

Procedures/work descriptions/work program

A great majority of the drillers state that they perform the work operation according to the procedures. Simultaneously, the
majority experience that occasionally there are several administrative systems and/or procedures they must deal with. This
occurs in some companies in which some drillers indicate that they take shortcuts. A total of seven drillers reported that they
often take shortcuts in relation to the procedures.

The work program describes how the work operation should be performed. One important task for the driller is to explain this
program to the drill crew. 43 % of the drillers feel that the work programs can be difficult to understand. This can be related to
the fact that some drillers experience that they have limited time for quality assessment of the work program in advance.
One driller expressed:
”It creates uncertainty when the company, the operator, and the authorities have procedures and guidelines that
cover the same topic. We must try to ensure that we as the users have only one document to deal with”.

Physical working conditions

The drillers' perception of the physical working conditions in the drilling area varies among the companies and the facilities.
However, some main trends are evident from the responses. Only 47 % of the drillers answer that they are satisfied with the
physical design of the driller's cabins. 50% of the drillers experience muscle pain and eye fatigue when operating the drilling
system. 24% of the drillers report that there seldom is a satisfying sight from the driller's cabin and 18% answer that the sight
is satisfactory sometimes.

Alarms and drilling systems

Most of the drillers state that they know how to react in connection with various alarms. However, the survey shows that
several drillers experience that the alarms do not function in an optimal manner. Examples are:
• A large number of unnecessary alarms - that is, alarms that the drillers do not respond to (56%).
• The alarm system does not provide support in connection with interruptions in operations most of the time (21%).
• The drilling system does not provide support in connection with critical situations most of the time (19%).
• The drilling system rarely provides an early warning when something is wrong (23%)
• Critical actions linked to alarms or the drilling system in general do not always require a confirmation (34%).

A total of 31 % of the drillers report that there are quite seldom made sufficient efforts to improve the alarm system, while
34% argue that such efforts are done sometimes.
Another aspect of the technical systems is the visual displays. The feedback from the drillers is not entirely consistent in this
area. The majority of the drillers report that the visual displays provide support and assistance, and a good overview of the
work operation. In spite of this, nearly half of the drillers argue that there is too much information to deal with. Moreover,
they experience that the drilling system provides too many opportunities to change variables in the displays, meaning that the
information is not consistent. There is a mix of old and new systems on several facilities. Consequently, the drillers need to
deal with multiple systems involving considerable diversity regarding how the information is presented.
6 SPE 111961

Understanding of risk
Responses from the drillers indicate that a majority feel that they have a good understanding of risk. As a supervisor, the
drillers also believe that they are able to ensure that the personnel working for them have a good understanding of risk. 20% of
the drillers experience that they occasionally do not have time to conduct a Safe Job Analysis (SJA). 14 % of the drillers
experience that SJAs do not always aid to bring attention to important aspects in regards to perform a safe operation.

Meetings, planning and communication

Subsequent to the drillers’ off period (three to four weeks), departure meetings are arranged to update the drilling crew prior to
their flight offshore. Several respondents consider the departure meetings to be too general. In their responses, some
companies have commented that they are intended to be general. Other companies reported that they intend to implement
changes in order to make the meetings more relevant for the drillers.
34 % of the drillers responded that they only occasionally got the required information in the handover-meetings held when
changing shifts. 45 % of the drillers answer that there may be too limited time to review the work descriptions at the handover-
meetings. 75% of the drillers often perform "pre-job meetings" before each individual job. Almost all of the drillers believe
that these meetings often contribute to a safe job performance.

Training
A total of 33% of the drillers experience that there is a lack of possibilities for them to update their professional expertise. The
training they receive is often not related to the job they actually do. The drillers were in particular not satisfied with the three
following areas of their training:
• Simulator training (beyond training in the obligatory pressure control simulator)
• Seminars where the team trains together
• Courses related to professional disciplines
The degree of training of new employees varies between the companies. About one-third of the drillers state that they rarely
receive training related to their local working conditions when they arrive on a new facility, and only 50% state that they have
a one-week overlap on new facilities.

Discussion
Based on feedback from the survey, the paper has described the drillers' work situation as complex and involving tightly
coupled interaction processes (Perrow, 1984). In general the driller’s work situation is characterised by continuous drilling
activities; multiple and challenging work tasks; managerial responsibility; operation of technical systems; and performing
demanding well control. The driller is the supervisor on the drill floor and must establish an understanding of the risk picture
and communicate the contents of governing work documents to the members of the drilling crew. The working situation is also
often characterised by interruptions, and requires making decisions continuously. Moreover, the driller needs to handle
information and complex visual displays. The drillers express they have a rather insufficient training and education facilities
both individually and with the rest of the crew.

Thus in total, the overall results show that there are challenges for the driller related to maintaining an overview of the work
situation and understanding of risk, which is necessary for safe work performance within the given framework conditions (e.g.
Aase et al. 2005, Reason 1997, Rasmussen 1997).

Expectations and demands to the drillers:

About 50% of the drillers feel their workload is too high and 25% of them state that they occasionally work so hard that it
almost exceeds what can be considered safe. Time pressure is an aspect mentioned by the drillers causing difficulties regarding
their ability for quality assessment of work programs; fulfilment of the role as supervisor; and performing the assigned work
tasks and maintenance. These results indicate a limited organizational slack (time, resources, personnel, competence) in the
companies causing a work situation that is not in accordance with theoretical contributions arguing for the need of sufficient
organizational slack in high risk industry (Aase et al 2005, Pettersen & Aase, 2007) such as the petroleum industry. Such time
pressure and limited slack can also result in work-related disorders e.g. musculoskeletal disorders. Almost 50% the drillers do
experience musculoskeletal pain from working. This can partly be linked to the physical design of the driller's cabin where the
driller largely feels locked in the work chair. In a study done on British petroleum sector results showed that the drillers were
the offshore workgroup with most musculoskeletal related pain (Morken et al 2004).

The drillers experience that there are a lot of procedures related to their work situation. When something goes wrong, new
procedures are established. The driller needs to deal with these new procedures and it is a challenge to keep updated. Changing
and new procedures can contribute to increase the work pressure on the driller and could potentially complicate the driller’s
understanding of the work situation. The results showed that the majority of the drillers feel that there are many administrative
SPE 111961 7

systems and procedures to relate to (Rosness et al. 2005). Moreover, almost half of the drillers finds the work programs hard to
understand. PSA regards the understanding of the work programs as essential to obtain a good risk picture for the driller. Some
companies respond that more time must be used to read these programs, but it could also be an advantage to make the
programs more understandable. A total of 50 % of the drillers who answered the general questions, expressed that they have
felt unsafe once or more times due to critical matters during drilling operations. This may be the result of limited capacity to
handle requirements and roles, procedures, concurrent work operations and the influence of external stress factors.

Physical design and alarm management:

Less than half of the drillers were satisfied with the physical design of the driller's cabin. The drilling regulations in Norway
dated 07.02.1992 detailed further requirements related to remote control of the pipe handling in the drilling area. The original
requirement of mechanized pipe handling was introduced in the early eighties to obtain drill floor automation and to improve
safety. This meant that some drill floor equipment had to be replaced with hydraulic and mechanical lifting equipment.
Generally on the drill floor there are area restrictions and in some instances the technical development have resulted in less
space and less practical layout at various pipe decks and drill floors (PSA 2005). The progress in the driller’s cabin has
resulted in a demanding man-machine-interface. To operate in the driller’s cyber chair is challenging to the previous
generation drillers. The driller used to have a demanding physical work situation. With the new system they now feel locked to
the chair. Almost half the drillers also answered there was too much information to handle in the visual displays.

There is a mix of old and new systems on several facilities, meaning that the drillers must deal with multiple systems with
considerable differences in how information is presented. Coordination of the systems (e.g. a review of how information is
presented) can help achieve a manageable volume of information, as well as fewer units of measurement to deal with. These
systems are an important part of the drillers' working environment and are key elements regarding the ability to implement
safe operations with a large risk potential.

A significant risk factor which emerged in the survey was poor visibility from the driller's cabin. The driller can be compared
to an advanced crane driver, the possibility to see what he/she is handling and what - or who is on the deck, is essential. Good
visibility as regards observation of the ongoing activity on the drill floor is a prerequisite for safe drilling operations. Deficient
visibility conditions could also lead to the driller assuming an unfortunate working position in order to achieve the best
possible visibility, which can lead to unnecessary strains and ailments in the muscular-skeletal system.

Both during operations and particularly during critical situations, it is important that the drilling system and the alarms provide
support for the driller. Several drillers reported that the drilling systems and alarm handling did not function in an optimal
manner. Poor alarm systems draw drillers attention away from tasks that are critical and does not provide support for the
driller during critical situations. The results correspond with the results from a PSA audit performed towards Central Control
room that clearly demonstrates that the design and management of the alarm systems was poor (Bjerkebæk et al 2004). The
drilling systems should not place additional burdens on the driller in the form of unnecessary information, but should relieve
the driller and assist to prioritize the most important tasks at any given time so that he/she can focus on the correct actions at
the right time. The drillers feel that there is room for improvement in this area.

Competence and risk understanding:

Humans are essential as a part of the safety defences at offshore installation. To prepare humans’ role as safety defences
requires organizational processes to assure adequate knowledge, competence, resources, and tools (Aase et al. 2005, Aase &
Tjensvoll 2004, Rosness et al. 2001). However, in this study it was demonstrated that the drillers express difficulties regarding
the opportunities and facilities to keep professionally updated; and regarding the aspect of training. The training they received,
only to a limited degree addressed elements of their work situation; and when arriving at a new facility several drillers stated
that they rarely got training in local working conditions. Thus improvements regarding updating and training both individually
and in teams are needed in order to better prepare the driller for the role as a part of the safety defence and to manage
undesired events.

The drillers stated that they have a good understanding of risk. However, the results showed that there are challenges related to
the perceived benefits of SJA among the drillers; the use of procedures; and the understanding of work programs. These
aspects combined with the results showing that the drillers are exposed to time pressure, have limited training and time to act
as supervisors; one may question the opportunity of the driller and drilling crew to have the overview and proper
understanding of risk related to the work situation. Facing this demanding work situation, drillers may be forced to focus on
certain types of situations more urgent than others, such as unnecessary alarms, while other situations with safety related
aspects such as SJA supervision may not receive the same attention. These examples can be related to what e.g. Kasperson et
al (1998) and Pidgeon et al. (2003) denote risk amplification and risk attenuation. Risk amplification and risk attenuation can
8 SPE 111961

imply that some risks may be overemphasized, while others are attenuated and potentially neglected by the company or the
driller (Kasperson et al. 1988, Pidgeon et al. 2003, Rothstein 2003). It is important that the companies focus on enabling the
drillers to get the situational overview and understanding of the overall risk picture in the drilling and well operations. Training
is considered an important aspect in the process of understanding risk, and reviewing the operations prior to conducting the
work operation is a key element in reducing the risk. Drilling and well operations have a risk potential regarding individual
accidents and major well accidents. Therefore, it is important that the involved drillers and drilling crew have an understanding
of the risk elements present in every work operation. The SJA is a tool for mapping and highlighting these risk elements so
that all involved participants can be aware of them before initiating the operation. SJAs or comparable reviews are thus tools
to reduce the likelihood of undesirable incidents and the risk associated with the operation. When some drillers respond that
there is no time to implement a SJA, and that the SJA is not useful, there is a need to consider why, and what kind of measures
could be implemented in order to make the SJA perceives as a more useful tool.
The meetings (departure meeting, pre-meeting, hand-over meeting) were all demonstrated as useful activities contributing to
increased risk awareness and improved understanding of the risk related to the drillers’ work situation (Aase et al. 2005).

Further work
The survey results and the project described in this paper indicate weaknesses regarding human, organisational, and technical
aspects. As an element of this HF project the companies have further analysed the weaknesses of relevance for the company.
Moreover the companies have discussed, proposed and implemented improvement measures. The experience from the HF
project will be shared in an industry seminar and other arenas in the industry.

A vital aspect of this HF project has been the interactive approach between the regulator and the companies. In the most
successful cases an interactive approach creates a sense of common purpose between the regulator and the industry
stakeholders. This type of interactions provides a sound basis for long-term effects of the safety-regulators interventions.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Jan Erik Åsland, Ola Kolnes and Jochim Haug at DNV for treating the statistic material and giving
input regarding the study. We also acknowledge Eirik Bjerkebæk at PSA for his comments and suggestions.

References

Aase, K., Skjerve, A.B.M., Rosness, R. (2005). Why Good Luck has a Reason: Mindful Practices in Offshore Oil and Gas
Drilling. In: Gherardi, S. & Nicolini, D. (Eds.) The Passion for Learning and Knowing. Proceedings of the 6th International
Conference on Organizational Learning and Knowledge, Vol. 1, pp. 193-210. University of Trento e-books, Italy. Available
at: http://eprints.biblio.unitn.it/archive/00000828/02/Volume_I-02.pdf

Aase, K. & Tjensvoll, T. (2003). Learning in emergency organizations: Trial without error. International Journal of Emergency
Management, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 410-422.
Eirik Bjerkebæk, PSA, Trond Sigurd Eskedal PSA, Lars Aage Seim/Institute for Energy Technology Bjerkebæk. 2004 SPE.
Safety Assessment of Alarm Systems on Offshore Oil and Gas Production Installations in Norway
Helander, Martin, 2006. A Guide to Human Factors and Ergonomics
Human Factors in Drill and Well Operations – challenges, projects and activities. PSA 2005. www.psa.no.
Skjerve, A.B., Lauridsen, Ø. 2006. Factors Affecting Employees' Willingness to Use Mindful Safety Practices at Norwegian
Petroleum Installations.
Svenson,O., Salo, I., Oedewald, P., Reiman,T., Skjerve, A.B. (Eds.). Nordic Perspectives on Safety management in high
reliability organizations. Theory and applications. 2006. Stockholm University: Valdemarksvik, 151-171.
Lydersen, S., (eds), ”Fra flis i fingeren til ragnarok”. Tapir academic publisher
Morken, T., Tveito, T.H., Torp, S. and Bakke, Å. 2004. Musculoskeletal disorders in the offshore oil industry. Norske
Laegeforening. 124 (20): 2623-2626.
Pidgeon, N., Kasperson, R.E., & Slovic, P. (eds.). (2003). The social amplification of risk. Cambridge,Cambridge University
Press.
Reason, James.1997. Managing the Risk of Organizational Accidents.
SPE 111961 9

Rosness, R., Aase, K., & Finnmannsvik, R. K. (2004) “HMS i paradoksens tid”.
Rothstein, H. (2003a). Neglected risk regulation: the institutional attenuation phenomenon. Health, Risk & Society, Vol. 5, No.
1, pp. 85-103.
The International Ergonomic Assosiation, 2000, The Discipline of Ergonomics, www.iea.cc

For guidelines for the evaluation of alarm systems reference is made to:
YA-710 Principles for designing alarm systems - 2001
http://www.ptil.no/regelverk/R2002/ALARM_SYSTEM_DESIGN_E.HTM

Figure caption

Fig. 1: PSA’s approach to the Human Factors concept.