1        HSE/Human Performance Strategies

This section describes strategies to improve human performance and HSE in complex, high risk workplaces. It stems from three focus areas commonly used in the human factors literature and NOPSEMA [Ref 2]. These include:

• Organisation;
• Job/Work Environment; and
• Individual.

It is recognised that these are broad focus areas which overlap and interact to create a work environment which can support success or increase the likelihood of human failure.

1.1       Organisational Strategies

This section provides a summary of organisational factors which when effectively designed and implemented will improve HSE/Human Performance.

HSE/Human Performance Policy: How effectively does the Safety/Operational Management System describe the Company understanding and approach to optimising human performance?

What ineffective looks like:

• An absence of any clear description and expectations relating to human performance in the Company management system/s; and
• Supporting systems and processes include little consideration of human performance in their design and implementation.

What industry leading looks like:

• A clear policy defining the Company understanding and execution of human performance principles in the form of an overarching policy;
• HSE/Operational systems and processes take a user-centred design approach; and
• It is evident that human performance principles have been considered throughout the design of operational, HSE and relevant supporting processes and systems.

Leadership Competency & Capability:  How effective do the operational leaders and other professional support services implement and support the Company human performance policy and activities?

What ineffective looks like:

• Leadership and support services are ineffective in demonstrating and implementing human performance strategies due to either:
  • The absence of workable approach;
  • The absence of senior leadership applying, modelling and implementing human performance principles; and
  • The absence of resourcing and/or capabilities to effectively support leadership to deliver the human performance policy and activities.
• Absence of an effective process around leadership selection, development and succession planning.

What industry leading looks like:

• The leadership team has a workable, adequately resourced and Company wide approach to managing human performance;
• Senior leadership consistently model the policy and activities; and
• Clear expectations and processes are in place to ensure leaders are selected and developed to provide effective management of human performance within the Company work context.

Performance Indicators and Key Drivers: Do the Company performance indicators drive a culture in line with principles of the human performance policy and activities?

What ineffective looks like:

• KPIs are predominately:
  • Lag indicators;
  • Results focussed;
  • Open to manipulation;
  • Drives self-interest and silo mentality;
  • Represent management rather than team performance; and
  • Drive a culture which focusses on metrics rather than the phenomenon itself.

What industry leading looks like:

• KPIs are predominately:
  • Lead indicators;
  • Barrier/control/process focussed;
  • Cannot be manipulated;
  • Encourage a collaborative effort;
  • Can be directly influenced by crews; and
  • Drive focus on performance against the phenomenon itself.

Communication Systems: Are the lines of communication effective within the Company?

What ineffective looks like:

• Communications and messaging are:
  • Transactional;
  • Uni-directional;
  • Focussed on evaluating and checking;
  • Inconsistent between leaders or with Company policy; and
  • Inconsistent over time or with previous agreements without justification.
• Leaders and support services take a passive approach to communication and how it may relate to human performance.

What industry leading looks like:

• Communications and messaging are:
  • Transformational;
  • Open and honest between and across all levels;
  • Focusses on understanding and learning; and
  • Consistent between leaders, with policy and previous agreements/decisions.
• Leaders and support services actively examine how their intent and communications are received and review their messaging approach to optimise human performance.

Resource Management & Planning: Is there adequate resourcing across functions critical to human performance and how effective is planning to ensure there are enough of the right people in the right roles?

What ineffective looks like:

• Resourcing does not allow effective leaders to be hired and/or promoted therefore reducing the effectiveness of the policy;
• Resourcing does not allow leaders to implement the human performance policy or its related activities rendering the policy lip service;
• Resourcing does not allow for development of leaders to understand and implement the human performance policy; and
• Poor planning and/or resourcing results in leaders consistently having to manage spot fires therefore preventing effective implementation of the policy and its related activities.

What industry leading looks like:

• Resourcing is adequate to allow for the selection and hire, and development of leaders who can effectively manage human performance;
• Resourcing and planning allow the leadership teams to implement human performance activities effectively and as per the policy; and
• Resourcing and planning allows for implementation of the policy to be included within the roles and responsibilities of leadership positions without completing with operational duties.

1.2       Job/Work Environment Strategies

This section provides a summary of job and work environment factors which when effectively designed and implemented will improve HSE/Human Performance.

Human-machine interface: How well has plant and equipment been designed to minimise human error? Has a user-centred design approach been applied?

What ineffective looks like:

• The company lacks any formal documentation around human factors engineering and user-centred design; and
• Plant and equipment are designed solely from an engineering and systems perspective without the consideration of the human interface and where possible user interface trials.

What industry leading looks like:

• The company has internal human factors engineering and human reliability in design requirements or clearly references the requirements to meet the relevant external standards within design/engineering requirement documentation; and
• The company applies human factors engineering and human reliability in design principles across all safety critical work to optimise usability and effectively manage human error.

Workload: Does the workload align with the timeline provided to complete the work and when work is delayed how effectively is this managed?

What ineffective looks like:

• Workload consistently exceeds the ability for personnel to complete it within the expected timeline (this is especially important for safety critical roles);
• Work and/or project timelines regularly exceed the schedule;
• Work schedules are rarely developed in consultation with the workforce due to:
  • Trouble getting any party (e.g. workforce, engineering, projects or management) available to participate in planning; and
  • Relationships between the relevant parties are not conducive to a consultative approach.
• When deadlines are not met a sense of guilt is placed upon and/or perceived by personnel; and
• When positions become vacant they are either not replaced, or replacements are delayed, without an appropriate risk based change management approach to ensure the reduced staffing levels do not introduce a risk to personnel wellbeing or safety.

What industry leading looks like:

• Workload consistently meets the ability for personnel to complete work safely within the expected timeline;
• Schedules are consistently adhered to;
• Resources are available and relationships effective to allow a collaborative approach to planning work;
• When deadlines are not met, learning is the focus to understand the challenges and apply these for future projects;
• Succession planning is embedded and when an individual within a leadership role is absent there are individuals available to effectively step-up; and 
• The workforce staffing levels have been risk assessed and are maintained as a priority for the business.

Procedures: How well have procedures been designed to minimise human error? Has a user-centre design approach been applied?

What ineffective looks like:

• The company lacks any formal documentation around usability or procedure design, development and review;
• Procedures are written and updated without adequate input from end-users; and
• Procedures are written solely from an engineering and systems perspective without the consideration of the human interface and where possible user interface trials.

What industry leading looks like:

• The company has a formal approach to writing and reviewing procedures to ensure effective consideration of human performance and input from end-users; and
• Resourcing allows end-user to be involved in the design and/or updating of procedures.

Task Requirements: This helps to understanding more specific factors of tasks such as: complexity, novel/routine, distractions, and attentional demands.

What ineffective looks like:

• Specific task requirements are not captured within the planning process to optimise safety, wellbeing and operational outcomes.

Working relationships with team member and supervisors:

• Resourcing and work planning allow specific task requirements to be consistently captured within the planning/preparation process to optimise safety, wellbeing and operational outcomes.

1.3       Individual Factors

This section provides a summary of individual factors which can reduce human performance in workplace. These typically include:

• Physical fitness and capability
• Psychological health
• Fatigue (chronic and/or acute)
• Stress and Morale
• Workload (overload or underload)
• Personnel competence
• Motivation (awareness of task critically and associated risk)

What ineffective looks like:

• The items listed above are not effectively considered and therefore the organisation fails to operate in ways which reduce the risk of personnel experiencing individual factors which may reduce their performance.

What industry leading looks like:

• Effective polices and processes are in place to manage these items (an example has been provided for each)
  • Physical fitness and capability – A risk-based approach is taken to the physical nature of each role which is captured via a functional assessment and included in the hiring/selection process;
  • Psychological health – Each facilities Health Risk Assessment captures and provides effective controls specific to the facilities work environment;
  • Fatigue (chronic and/or acute) – A risk-based approach it taken to staffing levels and these are adhered to and prioritised;
  • Stress and Morale – Messaging and communication is open, clear and consistent throughout the company, past agreements are adhered to and individuals are treated fairly;
  • Workload (overload or underload) – The workforce staffing levels have been risk assessed and are maintained as a priority for the business and supported by a KPI;
  • Personnel competence – The selection process and internal development process effectively recruits and builds competency within employees; and
  • Motivation (awareness of task criticality and associated risk) – rewards and recognition are provided fairly across all personnel and related to company objectives.