Please enable JavaScript for this site to function properly.
OnePetro
  • Help
  • About us
  • Contact us
Menu
  • Home
  • Journals
  • Conferences
  • Log in / Register

Log in to your subscription

and
Advanced search Show search help
  • Full text
  • Author
  • Company/Institution
  • Publisher
  • Journal
  • Conference
Boolean operators
This OR that
This AND that
This NOT that
Must include "This" and "That"
This That
Must not include "That"
This -That
"This" is optional
This +That
Exact phrase "This That"
"This That"
Grouping
(this AND that) OR (that AND other)
Specifying fields
publisher:"Publisher Name"
author:(Smith OR Jones)

Where Does Information on Incidents Come From?

Authors
V. L. Murphy (The Open University) | A. Littlejohn (The Open University) | B. Rienties (The Open University) | S. King (The Energy Institute) | R. Bryden (Shell Global Solutions International B.V.)
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2118/190526-MS
Document ID
SPE-190526-MS
Publisher
Society of Petroleum Engineers
Source
SPE International Conference and Exhibition on Health, Safety, Security, Environment, and Social Responsibility, 16-18 April, Abu Dhabi, UAE
Publication Date
2018
Document Type
Conference Paper
Language
English
ISBN
978-1-61399-591-4
Copyright
2018. Society of Petroleum Engineers
Disciplines
4 Facilities Design, Construction and Operation, 6.3 Safety, 4.9 Facilities Operations
Keywords
Learning from incidents, Information network, Formalising information, Learning from events, Information sharing
Downloads
0 in the last 30 days
47 since 2007
Show more detail
View rights & permissions
SPE Member Price: USD 9.50
SPE Non-Member Price: USD 28.00

Ensuring people in an organisation are well connected has been shown in previous research to be vital for exchanging information, influencing attitudes, and improving safety. After an incident, information is often distributed within a company so that others can learn from that incident. While processes to share incident information often exist, there is a need to understand whether and how information reaches those who need it in their roles, as effective information exchange is a first step to building the knowledge of those not directly involved in an incident.

To investigate this topic, the Open University, in collaboration with the Energy Institute, sent a survey to employees working in operational and maintenance teams at a European site of a multinational energy company, asking how they receive safety related information. Survey respondents included both front-line workers and managerial members of the teams. The surveys enquired how people receive information about incidents, focusing both on formal and informal channels. Here a formal channel refered to an email, document, or meeting where information on an incident is purposefully shared. Informal channels include, for example, discussing a safety concern with a colleague.

The data evidenced that plant operators and managers received information in different ways. Front-line workers appeared to have many connections within a team with whom they would discuss safety concerns, but mainly received information from outside their team only through official notifications distributed by the health and safety team. The managerial level members of the unit, on the other hand, often had a wide network of colleagues external to their immediate team, from whom they heard information about industry incidents in addition to the reports distributed by the health and safety team. How teams responded to an incident alert, and what additional knowledge was gathered by management was, nevertheless, not captured by a formal system. It is likely to be useful to formally record information on the actions taken in response to an incident by teams, as others could then learn not only from original incident information, but also from the responses of other teams within the organisation.

Consideration of the flow of information is vital if companies are to enable workers to learn from incidents which they weren’t directly involved in. While health and safety are usually the source of information, all workers at a site have the opportunity to hear about industry incidents that could help to keep front-line workers safe. However, unless a procedure exists to record the actions taken by teams and additional useful information gathered by management, learning will be kept to a local level. A formal database or system could aid teams in understanding how others have learnt from an incident.

File Size  867 KBNumber of Pages   10

Anderson, J. G., Ramanujam, R., Hensel, D. J., & Sirio, C. A. 2009. Reporting trends in a regional medication error data-sharing system. Health care management science 13 (1): 74-83.

Billett, S. 2014. Mimesis: Learning through everyday activities and interactions at work. Human resource development review 13 (4): 462-482.

Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American journal of sociology 110 (2): 349-399.

Drupsteen, L., & Guldenmund, F. W. 2014. What is learning? A review of the safety literature to define learning from incidents, accidents and disasters. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 22 (2): 81-96.

Gressgård, L. J., & Hansen, K. 2015. Knowledge exchange and learning from failures in distributed environments: The role of contractor relationship management and work characteristics. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 133: 167-175.

Hakkarainen, K. P., Palonen, T., Paavola, S., & Lehtinen, E. 2004. Communities of networked expertise: Professional and educational perspectives. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier Science.

Hanneman, R. A., & Riddle, M. 2005. Introduction to social network methods. Retrieved from http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/

Jacobsson, A., Ek, Å., & Akselsson, R. 2011. Method for evaluating learning from incidents using the idea of "level of learning". Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 24 (4): 333-343.

Jacobsson, A., Ek, Å., & Akselsson, R. 2012. Learning from incidents &- A method for assessing the effectiveness of the learning cycle. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 25 (3): 561-570.

Jacobsson, A., Sales, J., & Mushtaq, F. 2009. A sequential method to identify underlying causes from industrial accidents reported to the MARS database. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 22 (2): 197-203.

Jacobsson, A., Sales, J., & Mushtaq, F. 2010. Underlying causes and level of learning from accidents reported to the MARS database. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 23 (1): 39-45.

Lindberg, A.-K., Hansson, S. O., & Rollenhagen, C. 2010. Learning from accidents &- What more do we need to know? Safety Science 48 (6): 714-721.

Lingard, H., Pirzadeh, P., Blismas, N., Wakefield, R., & Kleiner, B. 2014. Exploring the link between early constructor involvement in project decision-making and the efficacy of health and safety risk control. Construction Management and Economics 32 (9): 918-931.

Littlejohn, A., Margaryan, A., Vojt, G., & Lukic, D. 2017. Learning from Incidents Questionnaire (LFIQ): The validation of an instrument designed to measure the quality of learning from incidents in organisations. Safety Science 99 (A): 80-93.

Lukic, D., Littlejohn, A., & Margaryan, A. 2012. A framework for learning from incidents in the workplace. Safety Science 50 (4): 950-957.

Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of management review 23 (2): 242-266.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. 1995. The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation: Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Palonen, T., & Hakkarainen, K. 2014. Social network analyses of learning at workplaces. In C. Harteis, A. Rausch, & J. Seifried (Eds.), Discourses on Professional Learning: On the Boundary Between Learning and Working (pp. 293-315). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

Palonen, T., Hakkarainen, K., Talvitie, J., & Lehtinen, E. 2004. Network ties, cognitive centrality, and team interaction within a telecommunication company. In H. P. A. Boshuizen, R. Bromme, & H. Gruber (Eds.), Professional learning: Gaps and transitions on the way from novice to expert (pp. 271-294). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

Reiter-Palmon, R., Kennel, V., Allen, J. A., Jones, K. J., & Skinner, A. M. 2014. Naturalistic decision making in after-action review meetings: The implementation of and learning from post-fall huddles. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 88 (2): 322-340.

Rienties, B., & Kinchin, I. 2014. Understanding (in) formal learning in an academic development programme: A social network perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education 39: 123-135.

Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. 1994. Social network analysis: Methods and applications, volume 8. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Zhang, L., He, J., & Zhou, S. 2012. Sharing tacit knowledge for integrated project team flexibility: Case study of integrated project delivery. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 139 (7): 795-804.

Other Resources

Looking for more? 

Some of the OnePetro partner societies have developed subject- specific wikis that may help.


 


PetroWiki was initially created from the seven volume  Petroleum Engineering Handbook (PEH) published by the  Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE).








The SEG Wiki is a useful collection of information for working geophysicists, educators, and students in the field of geophysics. The initial content has been derived from : Robert E. Sheriff's Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Geophysics, fourth edition.

  • Home
  • Journals
  • Conferences
  • Copyright © SPE All rights reserved
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Help
  • Terms of use
  • Publishers
  • Content Coverage
  • Privacy
  Administration log in