In high-risk industries like oil and gas, accidents are seldom caused by equipment failure alone. Many major accidents have procedural gaps, operational noncompliance and human error as sources. Inadequate procedures, ambiguities in roles and responsibilities, over-dependence on informal behaviour types of failings often place these latent conditions that result in an incident.
Procedural and Operational Human Factors (POHF) is centered on the manner in which people interface with procedures, operational practices, and control systems under routine, transient, and emergency conditions. A systematic HF assessment guides organisations in determining where procedures do not support human performance and where working practices introduce unnecessary risk.
What Are Procedural and Operational Factors of Human Error?
Procedural & Operational Human Factors addresses how operating procedures are designed, used and made available and the impact of this information on operator performance in a real plant situation.
This includes:
- How the procedures are authored, organized and accessed
- Tasks in practice vs tasks on paper
- The impact of workload, time pressure and shift patterns on decision-making
- The emergence of aberrations, shortcuts, and “accepted” sub-practices in the long run
This is also the case in oil & gas environments where loose processes do not end up with:
- Incorrect line-ups and valve operations
- Start-up and shutdown errors
- Bypass misuse and safeguard defeat
- Inadequate response in times of upsets and emergencies
Procedural human factors – why are they so important in oil and gas facilities?
The increasing risks associated with operations of the Oil and Gas industry which have complex automated process systems, hazardous substances and interlocking activities. Procedures are the backbone for operators to act safely and consistently.
Common industry challenges include:
- Lengthy, confusing procedures that are hard to remember in an emergency
- Variation in the presentation of operating, safety and emergency procedures
- Vague instructions that depend on personal interpretation
- Procedures that do not represent as-build plant configuration
- Reliance on intuition rather than guidelines
“Procedural and operational human factors, when considered in a systematic way, can lower the probability of human error, increase operational discipline and facilitate safer decision making.
Human Factors Assessment of Procedural and Operational Aspects
The components of a POHF evaluation usually include:
1.Operating Procedure Quality Review
Evaluation of operating procedures for:
- Clarity, sequence, and logical flow
- The use of clear and direct language
- Properly used: Warnings (cautions, notes)
- Compliance to the real plant structure and control configurations
2. Task and Job Analysis
Evaluation of performance on:
- Normal operations
- Start-up and shutdown
- Abnormal and emergency conditions
It highlights the discrepancies between ‘work as imagined’, and ’work as done’ in terms of memory-based, ad-hoc or undocumented practices.
3. Control Room and Field Interaction
Review of:
- Coordination among control room operators and field personnel
- Communication effectiveness during critical operations
- Handovers between shifts and departments
Inadequate communication and lack of clear ownership of the procedure are major factors in most incidents.
4. Management of Deviations and Bypasses
Assessment of the degree to which operational deviations are:
- Identified
- Approved
- Communicated
- Documented
This includes considerations of temporary overrides (if available), alarms shelving and bypassing safeguard practices in accordance with MoC requirements.
5. Human Errors Traps and Performance Altering Factors
Evidence of factors that raise the risk of error; these can include:
- Time pressure
- Fatigue and shift work
- Complex or conflicting instructions
- Poor interface design
- Inadequate training for abnormal scenarios
6. Emergency and Abnormal Situation Readiness
Review grain emergency plans to ensure that:
- Actions are prioritised and decision-centred
- Procedures are usable under stress
- Operators are assisted in the case of high-impact events
Standards and Best Practices Referenced
Procedural and operational human factors analyses are often in accordance to:
- CCPS – Human Error Prevention Guidelines
- ISO 45001:2018 – Occupational Health and Safety Management
- IEC91511 – Functional Safety (Human elements aspects)
- OSHA Process Safety Management
- HSE Human Factors Framework (UK)
These approaches stress that processes must support what people should be doing, not just showing they are complying.
Advantages of Considering Procedural and Operational Human Factors
Adopting a structured POHF program enables organizations to:
- Minimize human errors and near misses
- Improve consistency in task execution
- Reinforce observance of process safety requirements
- Enhance operator confidence and decision-making
- Enhance audit readiness and regulatory defensibility
For the asset owners, this means lower risk of incidents, increased reliability and higher safety culture.
When Is It Necessary to Perform a POHF Study?
Procedural and operational human factors audits are advised: 1.
- After incidents or near misses
- In the course of HAZOP, LOPA or SIL investigations
- Before commencing new or modified operations
- When processes are consistently circumvented or disregarded
- Process Safety Audits and Integrity Programmes
Frequently Asked Questions
Procedural and operational human factors are related to how individuals work with procedures, manuals, scripts, or system interfaces in normal operating conditions as well as during abnormal or emergency conditions. In the context of oil and gas, this refers to the usability of operating procedures, the unambiguity of instructions, decision-making under pressure, the communication between control room and field operators, how deviations are dealt with. If the procedural human factors are bad, it can easily lead to that human errors and accidents become more common.
Human error is a factor when procedures are unclear or out-of-date, too complex to be followed easily and in keeping with the way the system is actually operated. Fatigue, time stress, insufficient training, poor communication, and overuse of informal procedures are often causes driving operational errors. Lessons learned from major oil and gas catastrophes consistently highlight the role of human and organisational factors, even when equipment is operating as intended.
A procedural human factor assessment would generally include a review of normal, abnormal and emergency procedures in the operating task of interest, as well as observation of field performance on the tasks in question, an analysis of bypass practices and dterenatne disorders in work practice. The evaluation aims at revealing gaps between procedures as described in the documents and their execution, promoting traps of human error and opportunities to enhance documentation’s clarity, operability and compliance.
Human factors in the oil and gas sector are managed within a range of international guidelines including CCPS human factors guidelines, OSHA Process Safety Management (PSM), IEC 61511 functional safety requirements, ISO 45001 alongside regulatory guidance directed on human factors by regulators such as the UK HSE. These guidelines accentuate that the processes are to be developments supporting human performance not just a checklist of compliance.
Oil and gas organisations are recommended to carry out a human factors study during HAZOP, LOPA and SIL assessments; following incidents or near misses; prior to commissioning new or modified facilities; when procedures are bypassed (or misunderstood) on a regular basis. Human factors overviews are also recommended as part of process safety audits and operational excellence programme to strategically decrease risk and enhance reliability.