A New, Improved JSA Process Gets Enthusiastic Approval From Field Personnel

Abstract

Summary Many oilfield companies require field crews to systematically analyze safety aspects of their activities before starting work. Most commonly this process is called a job safety analysis, or JSA. Recent developments in measuring safety performance have changed the JSA process by better defining its function, as explained in this paper. This change provides major improvements and is rapidly gaining acceptance throughout the Gulf of Mexico petroleum industry. An informal survey of Gulf of Mexico offshore production facilities and drilling rigs showed that JSAs tend to be viewed as a tedious formality that crews comply with only because they are required to do so. For a typical jackup drilling rig, adopting the new JSA process and its standards can reduce the total time spent in JSA meetings from approximately 30 man-hours per day to fewer than 4 man-hours per day. In general, work crews enthusiastically approve of the new style of JSA because of the time savings and because it clarifies key responsibilities. Where conventional JSAs simply identify things that should happen, the new style causes things to happen, and the result is a considerable reduction in the likelihood of accidents. Introduction Major oil companies often require their own employees, and most contractors, to use a JSA process (although the process is sometimes referred to by another name). The crux of the idea is that crews hold a meeting before beginning any job, analyze the job, and decide what they can do to prevent accidents during the job. While visiting rigs, production facilities, construction sites, and other work areas, a considerable difference between perception of implementation and the actual implementation of JSAs was noted. For example, on one location the noise level was so high outside the offices and quarters that everyone had to wear hearing protection. The crew gathered and the supervisor read a JSA while the crew members stood, unable to hear any of the JSA information. The crew then completed the job and the supervisor filed a report stating that a JSA was conducted according to the requirements of the company policy. It was no surprise to find the crew was privately scoffing at the JSA process and viewed it as bureaucratic excessiveness. Company health, safety, and environmental departments often believe the JSA process is being followed and accepted scrupulously by work crews; they may even identify records and testimonies that support that conclusion, as in the example above. However, objective observers who spend enough time with a work crew to gain their confidence often find people privately confessing they see no benefit in the JSA process and generally consider it a required-but-meaningless formality. This situation is common throughout the industry: management sends out strongly worded orders that a JSA must be conducted and they get back reports that the order was followed, but what actually happens has little or no effect on the probability of accidents. Because of this, it was necessary to develop a better way to accurately gauge the effectiveness of a JSA program. A JSA is valuable only if it prevents accidents, but even without a JSA, most jobs would not result in an accident. That makes it hard to determine if the JSA made a real difference. The problem is amplified by official or unofficial programs that encourage employees to hide accidents or to change their records. In many instances, accident reports are distorted to make the occurrence of accidents seem less frequent than they really are. How, then, can management better determine whether a given accident report decreased the chances of that particular accident occurring again? How, then, can we prove that a JSA actually decreased the chances of accidents occurring? Effective JSAs produce the same corrective actions produced by a good accident report. The only difference is that the JSA determines the corrective action before, rather than after, the accident occurs. Therefore, the effectiveness of a JSA can be measured by the exact process used to measure the effectiveness of corrective actions in accident reports (Veley 2002). This means that an effective JSA is a plan, or a prearranged schedule of events leading to a particular objective. To meet theis definition, a JSA must produce specific things to do that will become corrective actions when they are assigned.

Applications, Shortcomings, and New Advances of Job Safety Analysis (JSA): Findings from a Systematic Review

“…The new version is able to model all types of interactions between human and working environment. [ 22 ] Proposing a new version of JSA which is less time-consuming. A “checklist of assignments” are developed to make the hazard identification process easier.…”

“…Combining JSA and CIGJS is very effective in visualizing hazards threatening the health and safety of a worker performing a particular task. In the same vein, Veley et al [ 22 ] also argued traditional JSA for being tedious and time-consuming, which can negatively affects its usefulness. To make JSA less time-consuming, Veley et al [ 22 ] recommended a JSA-based “checklist of assignments” to be completed before starting the task/work.…”

A New Method of Measuring Safety Performance Will Soon Affect the Whole Industry

“…2 As shown in Fig. 4, management processes for accident prevention are useful only to the extent they produce a corrective action.…”

Derivation, Application, and Evaluation of the KUBO-TEPA Matrix for Generating Corrective Actions

“…The most common method of assignment is the JSA. 1 The corrective actions the company suggested included applying a JSA. Because JSA is not defined, presumably the crew is familiar with JSAs, but either one was not used before the subject rig move, or if it was, it was an ineffective variety.…”

“…When people know and understand but don't believe, you must Persuade them -something far easier said than done and something that separates leaders from bosses. 1 If someone didn't observe, the obvious corrective action will be to Assign a specific task that will ensure the observation will be made in the future. Therefore, each of the Primary causes, KUBO, is paired with a Primary cure, TEPA, an acronym for Teach, Educate, Persuade, or Assign.…”