Presentation of Platform Zero Incidents
Maurits van der Linde – PZI
The presentation of Van der Linde started with an animation:
Although, inland shipping is a sustainable and safe way of transporting goods, unfortunately, incidents still happen. On the other hand, from an historical perspective, techniques, innovations, rules, legislation, procedures and (management)systems made the industry safer. However, we reached a certain optimum in our declining incident rate. When we continue the way we work today, we will continue to have the same results as we did before. This means zero incidents is an Utopia, an ideal state which we will never achieve. Therefore, it is time for a mental shift, from a compliance orientation to a human orientation, to make zero incidents happen! A climate in which we have to be aware of the fact that the crew on board are the experts of transporting (dangerous) goods via inland waterways! The stakeholder conference is an open invitation to all stakeholders to create a zero incidents climate together. Presentation – Maurits van der Linde
Blame and Just Cultures – The Importance of Transparency and Trust in Achieving Zero Incidents
Ed Barsingerhorn – Shell
Barsingerhorn explained how culture will influence safety. There is a big difference between a blame culture and a just culture which affects the way safety issues are addressed in a workplace. A culture is just when safe behaviors are rewarded and when things go wrong the approach (to employees) is fair. There is always a chronic unease about what could go wrong, we are open to learn and stay informed, open for intervention and the culture is empowering and trustworthy. An important element though, is leadership. Leaders are an example to the entire organization. They set the standard. For Shell, this means that leaders are mindful of risks; they demonstrate visible and felt leadership; motivate, coach and develop personnel; but still hold individuals accountable; and finally, engage deeply with stakeholders. In order to learn and improve, data needs to be collected. Reporting incidents are of fatal importance and findings and statistics can lead to a different approach to certain risks. A high and steady amount of incidents in the period 2000 to 2010 showed that failure to comply with basic safety rules was an issue; and as a result of that, the Shell Life Saving Rules were developed and introduced which resulted in a significant drop in fatalities and other incidents. To conclude, Barsingerhorn advocated that supporting PZI is important to co-create that just safety culture within the industry and learn and lead us to Zero Incidents. Presentation – Ed Barsingerhorn
Photo: Sander Klos
Ship/Shore Interface / Human Element – Culture and Compatibility
Luc Cassan – BASF
About 30 years ago, the industry started with a new approach; going from a ‘who’ approach (who is guilty and responsible) to a ‘why’ approach (why did something happen). This shift in approach proves to be more effective. In the ‘who’ approach people try to hide incidents and evidence, which leads to a bigger chance of repetition. When asking ‘why?’, the root cause can be identified and a solution can be developed. This approach is not easy, because it takes time, asks for thorough investigation and needs the support of top management while results are not always evident. To reduce the amount and severity of incidents, we first need to identify which incidents happen and how often they occur. For sea-going this information is available and accessible. For inland shipping this information is not complete, available or reliable. After identifying the incidents, we want to stop rising trends. This can be done by identifying root causes and reacting to them. PZI is committed to ask the ‘why’ question by collecting data, digging up the root causes and reacting to them within a reliable and just environment. Presentation – Luc Cassan
Photo: Sander Klos
Learning from Incidents in the Aviation Industry
Benno Baksteen – DEGAS
Baksteen shared his view from an aviation background. He pointed out what influences a person in their decision-making process; perception, risk acceptance, capabilities, uncertainty and ethical questions. The biggest cause of incidents has to do with the human factor. Behavior can be split up into bona fide and mala fide behavior. Bona fide behavior, in contrast to mala fide behavior, has the intention to do good. With this mentality, a safety culture could thrive. This mindset is influenced by people’s perception, memory, tunnel vision, type of decision making, conformity and ego. These can cause for humans to fail. Looking at the Swiss Cheese model, we see that multiple barriers have to be placed to reduce the likelihood of an incident. The bow-tie model shows how barriers can stop a threat from becoming an incident, however, when multiple threats arise, the chance for one of them to lead to an incidents is greater. After an incident has happened, barriers can be placed in order to prevent or reduce consequences. Even tough procedures may support safety, a procedure in itself does not make an environment safe. It is actual action that make an environment or situation safe or unsafe. Over time, more procedures do not add to a safer environment. A focus should be on resilience. Resilience is made out of technology, procedures and people working together. In order to guide people in their behavior, checklists and standard operating procedures are implemented and teamwork is promoted. The fact is, that safety can never be the first priority. Safety is in competition with reliability and affordability. In conclusion, the road to zero incidents starts with a just culture, continues with storytelling, in-depth analysis, the view that rules are tools, acknowledgement that safety is a part of a whole, the importance of resilience which leads back to a just culture. All elements are necessary. Presentation – Benno Baksteen
During the speeddate session, stakeholders and PZI-member talked about mutual expectations and how a contribution to PZI might look like.
General expectations of stakeholders
- Work together with similar organizations, like Intertanko, VOW, SPCS, ISGINNT.
- Developing reporting and investigation standards.
- Conduct fundamental research.
- Be transparent and share trends.
- Clearly communicate.
- Be a platform for oil majors to communicate with.
- Execute a root cause analysis.
- Draft a branch risk assessment.
- Conduct audits on terminals.
- Share outcomes with education institutions so that these can be integrated into programs.
- Create awareness among the crew.
What stakeholder can offer
- Establish advisory boards of different stakeholders.
- Providing incidents.
- Associated membership.
- Offer expertise and resources.
- Review of reports (by surveyors).
- Check whether legislation is actually feasible (authorities).
- Offer access to network.
- Provide information coming from sea-shipping.
As a closing element, all speakers participated in a forum discussion, lead by Roland Kortenhorst, chairman of the day. Different topics of that day were discussed, as well as some questions from the audience.
Photo: Sander Klos