A - Z of HSSE (part two: N-Z)

N: neuroscience

It should not be a huge surprise to learn that our brains have evolved cognitive shortcuts (heuristics). What may be a surprise is that these neural pathways between our neocortex ('thinking brain') and amygdala ('survival brain') rob us of rational thought.

The brain does this to nudge uncertainty (unknown unknowns) into risk (known unknowns). This means when we experience an 'unknown' our brain accesses a store of existing patterns (memory) and overlays the closest match it could find (the brain loves patterns).

This recollective process eases the cognitive load (an advantage in a complex world), but also means the optimum result/ satisfactory outcome trade-off is made in our unconscious minds. Hence why we often think, 'why didn't I see that, it was so obvious in retrospect'?

So if you have thought that, then you are likely the subject of hindsight bias; but there will be a chance you did not 'see' the right choice because your striatum (another brilliant part of your brain) had ‘sold’ a more familiar reality to your consciousness (that you’d seen before).

Repeating heuristics causes them to become engrained, and these filters are referred to as bias. For example, confirmation bias describes a tendency toward that which conforms to a belief, attentional bias focuses on some information to the detriment of everything else, etc.

In summary, HSSE decision makers are rarely free of bias, and they often need a 'fresh' and objective perspective to help guide them - that's a big part of any HSSE professionals job.

O: opportunity

A highlight of my teenage Friday nights was visiting Blockbuster to rent the latest VHS video. At that time the $3 billion franchise had 84,000 workers and 65 million customers.

The first Blockbuster was opened by David Cook in Dallas (19/10/85). Cook was a software developer who tried his luck, and staff locked the doors on that day to stop overcrowding.

What gave Cook and Blockbuster the competitive edge was a barcode system that could manage up to 10,000 video tapes per store, as opposed to the 100 per store offered by their competitors. It was reputed that they earned $800 million per year through late fees alone!

Cook enhanced the operation by building a $6 million distribution center. This held a huge number of titles and allowed a store to tailor a range to their local customers. Further to this, the hub also cut a significant amount of time out of the process required to open a new store.

Cook departed the business after only two years due to irreconcilable disagreements with investors. Wayne Huizenga then took control and embarked on an aggressive expansion plan that involved opening one new store every single day. By 1988 there were over 400 stores!

In 1994 Huizenga sold the Blockbuster video-rental business to Viacom for a whopping $8 billion. In 1997 Reed Hastings founded a DVD-by-mail company called Netflix, a company that Blockbuster passed on the opportunity to buy for a mere $50 million.

In 2009, Netflix posted $116 million profits, had 3 million customers, and were preparing to launch a streaming service. In the same year Blockbuster posted $518 million losses and then on 1st July 2010 was delisted (NYSE) and rented their last video 9th November 2013.

A large part of an HSSE professional's job is to rationalize the probability, consequence and severity of upside (opportunity) as well as detriment (legacy 'risk'). Don't be Blockbuster!

P: pressure

Traditionally, there were only a few job functions that were taught to manage undesirable emotions, fear being one. This niche education had been associated with sports until the early 90's, at which time the military realized there was little difference, on a physiological level, between preparing to kick down an insurgency-held door and preparing a penalty kick.

This led to 'stress inoculation' in military training, which translated into conditioning against fear by consistent exposure to extreme battlefield conditions. This allowed normalization so that personnel could acknowledge the emotion, and then either suppress (by breathing, self-talk, etc.) or replace it with more useful responses that capitalize on excitement, loyalty, etc.

Within these situations the body initiates many involutory processes, like vasoconstriction, where blood is removed from the surface and stored in arteries to fuel organ function, bruise prevention, etc. This process removes a certain amount of brain functionality which results in a lack of rational thought because you instinct needs you doing, and not over thinking.

It is in this space that someone can be successfully taught to perform under extreme pressure and why modern military training 'almost' guarantees every soldier will return fire when shot at. However, as time passes there will be performance degradation unless the act (be that fire a weapon or direct an emergency response team) is practiced to the point of automation.

In summary, emergency response drills are key to ensure that all personnel are acclimatized to the stresses of an actual event. Paralyses and panic costs lives, so an HSSE professionals job is to ensure, whether door kickers or goal kickers, there is a suitable state of readiness.

Q: quality (cost & time)

I have a well-worn speech that I roll-out at the start of any project that is the product of a huge amount of career wins, as well as many lessons. One subjects I consistently address is triple constraint theory, and it always surprises me how many have never heard of it.

Even if you have not heard of the theory, you will find it can explain many of your planned and (all of your) unplanned outcomes. As the project manager you are responsible for many things, primary of which are project the (triple) enablers of 1) quality, 2) time, and 3) cost.

The link is that quality, time, and cost are interdependent, and it is impossible to change any of them without affecting the other two. For example, changing the quality will alter time and cost, in the same way as a change to time will impact upon both quality and cost.

This is why the best project managers are far away from a spreadsheet. Not because they like spreadsheets (that is a rare breed), but because the database of figures are a playbook of the changes and concessions that are being made to the triple constraints within their project.

So, you are probably wondering why a HSSE professional is talking about triple constraint theory. Many unplanned events result from someone trying to 'do more with less', and there is a breaking point within that equation, unless there is also a change in time, cost, or quality.

R: relational teams

Building effective teams that simultaneously satisfy the members professional goals is a hallmark of any high-performing organisation. This is an aspirational 'good-to-great' process that could never be termed a science; perhaps an abstract art at best.

As with any art form, and discounting sheer luck, the mechanisms must still conform to certain fundamental rules. One principle relates to the dichotomy of transactional vs relational influences that are underestimated by most management functions.

Transactional teams are characterized by financial metric to benchmark success. These paid per unit models encourage individual success, to the detriment of collective culture. Close monitoring is required as the lure of a prize can frequently supersede risk (think 'Enron').

Relational teams sit at the other end of the spectrum and have a far more complex social construct. The metrics used to measure success propel interaction beyond transaction and rest within achieving integral values which encompass a strong collective. These types of teams also need to be closely monitored to ensure their relevance and competitive viability.

The difference is very obvious during boom/ bust cycles when popularity oscillates from organisational growth (relational) to cash flow (survival). This correlation is also present on a granular level with individuals choosing contractor-type contracts during positive market conditions; but falling back into employment when the economic outlook is less certain.

One of the most interesting aspects is that no individual or team will ever consistently adopt one approach alone. There will be times when the inclination points towards transactional or relational, but a 'fluid' hybrid model tends to organically reveal a cultural-shaping dynamic.

It is common to select team members on individual competencies (with other considerations a distance second). However, great teams look beyond competency and reverse engineer a HSSE culture to the required personality types which harmonize into the chosen culture.

In summary, the most successful teams are not necessarily filled with the best players, they are a home for the best team members. However, in the commercial world the players often mistake HSSE as a blocker for greatness, and that is where HSSE surveillance is critical.

S: safety 1, safety 2 and safety differently

HSSE professionals have moved their thinking from 'loss events are preventable' towards a performance focus (almost an All Black philosophy) that accounts for how (imperfect) people make workplace adjustments (complexity, uncertainty, ambiguity, conflicts, etc.).

In terms of the theory behind this evolution, you may hear talk of moving from 'Safety 1' to 'Safety 2', and then onto 'Safety Differently'. With that in mind, here's a short explanation:

Safety 1:?is the legacy view and defines safety as the lack of unwanted events that either did (incidents) or could have (near miss) resulted in loss. This focuses on process and/ or human fault (blame) to have directly or indirectly caused the unsafe operation that ended in the loss.

Safety 2:?is more progressive and founded in resilience engineering with the belief ‘things go wrong’ and ‘things go right’ for similar reasons. This view defines safety as the ability to succeed under varying conditions and requires a functional operational understanding.

Safety Differently:?is a dichotomy from the process-driven approach of Safety 1 and Safety 2, with concentration on the human input (human factors, social psychology of risk, decision science, etc.). This focusses on success, and not building layers of defense to prevent loss.

A hybrid of all three works best. This means that to be credible, an HSSE professional must have solid operational experience (Safety 2) combined with academic competence (Safety Differently). That is why I always encourage HSSE professionals towards chartered status.

T: threat intelligence

Threat intelligence is knowledge that allows you to prevent or mitigate attacks by making informed and pragmatic risk-based decisions. In order to be effective it must be actionable, timely, include relevant context and understood by key enablers and decision makers.

This is why, when threat intelligence is not fully integrated within a wider security envelop, it results in dangerous vulnerability. This is because effective protection can only be as good as the risk modelling that anticipates threat actors, their tactics, enemy techniques, etc.

Risk modelling is based upon the premise that there is always going to be a threat landscape, so we identify and prioritize what is in it. This kind of transparency adds layers of resilience/ recovery should the proactive measures fail and can be sub-divide into three categories:

Strategic:?Provides a broad overview of a threat landscape for a specific organisation. It informs high-level decisions and is not technical. This provides insight into certain lines of action, broad patterns in threat actor tactics and targets, geopolitical events, trends, etc.

Tactical:?Outlines the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) and is used to understand the attack vectors that a threat actor may use. It includes technical context, and is unique to an organisation and so only used by those directly responsible for defense of the business.

Operational:?Knowledge about attacks, events, campaigns, etc. It aids response teams to understand the nature, intent, and timing of specific attacks, and how to defend against them.

In summary, reliable threat intelligence helps identify and manage the vulnerabilities which pose a real risk so you can base decisions on real-time credible threats. The truth is, if you are prominent in the UK energy industry and not working with a protection specialist, then please hear this warning: you present an underprepared, vulnerable and attractive target.

U: urgent versus important

The HSSE world is full of people who are super-busy (and super-stressed) but achieve nothing meaningful. One reason for this was eloquently put by former US President Eisenhower "What is important is seldom urgent and what is urgent is seldom important".

Eisenhower's words tell us there is rarely a correlation between urgent and important; they are neither mutually exclusive nor interdependent. However, the human tendency is to put a time-sensitive task at the top of the list, without any real due consideration of importance.

Eisenhower's words were developed by Stephen Covey in 'The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People'. Covey's Urgent Important Matrix ensures effective time management by assigning priorities, challenging habitual behaviours, and reducing needless interruptions/ distractions.

In summary, the Urgent Important Matrix is a proven performance tool and key enabler in moving a reactive culture to one with satisfied, healthy, and guilt-free personnel. If you find yourself saying that "I am firefighting and have no time" then you might want to take a look.

V: values

Many find it hard to see the link between values and performance. If you consider that a culture defines the way that the organisation completes it vision, then the strategic role of values becomes clear. Steve Jobs’ typified the benefits of fusing process with shared values.

Jobs used this to attract market share and talent for Apple, and it was one of many catalysts used to create one of the most successful companies of all time. However, it is also critical to understand that commitment to values can also come with very high costs and constraints.

I recall a drilling contractor who built a reputation on their promise to "never lay anyone off, we are family". Then an oil downturn arrived and lay-offs became unavoidable. This broken promise robbed the company of any future brand credibility (a market rarely 'understands').

This example reinforces that values really are essential in achieving a vision, and managers must choose between a person who can do what they want or want what they want. This importance is even greater when we consider rapid technical advances and skills attrition.

This means that a winning team is not necessarily a team full of winners; but a winning team is a collective that prioritizes long term vision over short term satisfaction. So, the HSSE vulnerabilities within that journey has to be competently managed in order to bring success.

W: work as done/ work as prescribed

I am in awe of the engineering and skillsets that are needed for offshore energy (from oil rig to wind farm). In 1961, JFK asked a NASA janitor why he stayed late to mop a floor and was told, “I'm helping put a man on the moon". No matter what offshore job I have done, I have always considered myself to (figuratively speaking) be putting a man on the moon.

That is why I am grateful that my oil field career began at the business-end of a scrubbing brush. This is because those early days taught me invaluable lessons about work execution. An example difference between work a) prescribed by management and b) performed.

This dichotomy was apparent in a drilling team that was led by a strong alpha who has very little respect for his employer. This meant his team's 'work-as-prescribed' was rarely 'work-as-done', leaving a huge disparity with 'work-as-disclosed' and 'work-as-imagined' resulting in routine violations and huge HSSE gaps (the team was notorious for suffering loss events).

The size of the gaps between those 'work-' concepts reveal a huge amount about project risk. It indicates everything from operational control to leadership effectiveness and equipment selection. At a glance it is sometimes hard to see these variants (especially behind a desk) but they becomes apparent when counting the project's visible and invisible cost.

These gaps do not appear by luck, and there are a myriad of intertwined reasons behind their creation. I have consistently seen that traditional transactional (performance) organizations are far more out of sync (top-to-bottom) than those who adopt a relational (growth) mindset.

The reason for this rests in an ability to embrace challenge and change. This is why a growth culture always beats a performance-based one (in terms of HSSE, and everything else). This is because growth delivers an autonomous cycle of continuous improvement that reaches an exponential rate of organisational learning. However, when a system is based on financial metrics, it inevitably suffers the costs of errors and violations that it (ironically) encourages.

X: Generation X, and all the rest

Staying competitive in today's climate is a herculean challenge to stay competitive. We have never before faced this degree of geopolitical and economic uncertainty in a time defined by a pandemic and unprecedented technological evolution/ revolution. Even the most optimistic among us would struggle to label our current circumstance as optimal for collective success.

Navigating this maze becomes even more complex when we consider our four very distinct working generations; each of which require tailored leadership and management approaches, and none appear to collectively appreciate the other without assistance in bridging nuances.

The Baby Boomers (born between 1945 and 1964) were born to post-war affluence, linked with consumerism and increasing standards of living due to plentiful work, the cost of which was decreasing levels of parental supervision, hence the unfortunate term 'latchkey' children.

Generation X (born between 1965 and 1981) then inherited an individualistic approach to work that was, and continues to be, characterized by focus, ambition, and an overriding sense of duty to get the job done no matter what the cost (personally or societally).

The 'Millennials' (born between 1982 and 1994) arrived in a world of economic crisis where workplace values were evaporating; a fact that was lost on Baby Boomers and Generation X who ambushed the Millennials for their lack of emotional and social etiquette.

Lastly, Generation Z (born between 1995 and 2010) joined us as the constantly 'connected' children, youth and young adults of today who live in an information age of immediate satisfaction defined by a constant search for the next dopamine 'hit'.

We must recognize that we are not all the same, do not all share the same ideals surrounding self-actualization and that we are indeed unique in our culture, personality, gender, history, sexuality, ability, and attitude - and that the uniqueness should be celebrated.

The point is that the fifth-dimensional HSSE space in our ever-changing industrial world could be an incredibly interesting generational gap that is seemingly ignored within most contemporary management and leadership theory. An inclusive workspace where all feel appreciated, valued, welcomed, integrated, and included is critical in controlling hazards.

Y: you

This is a short one, and probably the most important within this A-Z.

If you haven't defined who you are/ what you want from HSSE, and are proactively working towards it (whilst cognizant of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) then you are being left behind by many HSSE professionals. It takes a effort, constant development and unwavering dedication to stay relevant, and that means being one step ahead of the changing threat landscape (and in today's world that is not easy). You will never achieve success on your own, grow a diverse support network that unifies on values that resonate with you.

Z:?zeroing in (concentration)

In the late 1980's Francesco Cirillo was enrolled in a university in Rome. Cirillo found he was easily distracted and used a tomato-shaped kitchen timer to divide his study sessions into 15-minute blocks. Within these sessions Cirillo would close himself off to the outside world and concentrate intensely for 10 minutes, immediately followed by a 5-minute break.

Cirillo noted a marked improvement in his information retention skills. He eventually settled on 30 minutes being optimum (25 minutes work/ 5 minutes rest). This technique helped him graduate and then propelled him into management consultancy where he selflessly named the process the 'Pomodoro (Tomato) Technique', in honor of his kitchen timer back in Rome.

The technique has been proven to work for several reasons. By counting down, as opposed to forward, the technique abstracts time and creates eustress (beneficial stress). The frequent breaks also ensure a stronger subject engagement by preventing boredom. The breaks also help regulate the psychological load so to sustain a steady cognitive pace for longer periods.

In summary, it is unrealistic to expect a person to be productive and 'switched on' throughout the entire working day. Valid studies conclude human concentration works in 'pulses', the most credible of which states a 52-minute/ 17-minute split is optimum. Now consider that concept in the context of your workplace risk profile. Perhaps it is time to rethink breaks.