No abstract

More attention has recently been given to Human Factors in petroleum accident investigations. The Human Factors areas examined in this article are organizational, cognitive and physical ergonomics. A key question to be explored is as follows: To what degree are the petroleum industry and safety authorities in Norway focusing on these Human Factors areas from the design phase? To investigate this, we conducted an innovative exploratory study of the development of four control centres in Norwegian oil and gas industry in collaboration between users, management and Human Factors experts. We also performed a literature survey and discussion with the professional Human Factors network in Norway. We investigated the Human Factors focus, reasons for not considering Human Factors and consequences of missing Human Factors in safety management. The results revealed an immature focus and organization of Human Factors. Expertise on organizational ergonomics and cognitive ergonomics are missing from companies and safety authorities and are poorly prioritized during the development. The easy observable part of Human Factors (i.e. physical ergonomics) is often in focus. Poor focus on Human Factors in the design process creates demanding conditions for human operators and impact safety and resilience. There is lack of non-technical skills such as communication and decision-making. New technical equipment such as Closed Circuit Television is implemented without appropriate use of Human Factors standards. Human Factors expertise should be involved as early as possible in the responsible organizations. Verification and validation of Human Factors should be improved and performed from the start, by certified Human Factors experts in collaboration with the workforce. The authorities should check-back that the regulatory framework of Human Factors is communicated, understood and followed.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyze how implementation of a management concept is interpreted by a team within a multinational company. The headquarter “rolls out” a standardized version of teamwork within a lean production system. The authors want to investigate what happens. Design/methodology/approach – The paper is based on a case study approach in a single company with available data over a long period of time. Findings – Instead of being a vehicle for involvement and responsibility through the increased visibility, the tools and techniques become a perceived control mechanism because of a lack of connection between norms and values and tools. Despite the initiating enthusiasm of manager stating that “we are now at day one of a new life”, the system is perceived as yet another management concept, and the tools implemented did not represent any meaningful improvement. Research limitations/implications – The paper is based on a single company, describing a particular phenomenon. Practical implications – The paper highlights the importance of involvement when new concepts are transferred into a new social context. Originality/value – The in-depth study of a team within a multinational corporation implementing a management concept is unusual. The main theoretical contribution is to combine conceptualization of both social context and management principles.

Purpose: This article aims to explore the relationship between contemporary forms of manufacturing rationalization and the reproduction of communities of practice (CoPs) centred on tasks and craft. Building on critical literature highlighting tensions between CoPs and rationalization, this article aims to develop a nuanced account of how CoPs are reproduced in the context of rationalization.Design/methodology/approach: A qualitative case study was conducted of a CoP involved in the production of automotive components. Following a change in ownership, the company was instructed to rationalize production according to principles of lean production. Data were collected through participant observation and semi-structured interviews. Findings:The CoP of the case study reinterpreted, resisted and redefined the lean production practices according to established norms and values. In collusion with local management, workers protected the integrity of the community by engaging in hypocritical reporting. While lower-level managers buffered the rationalization pressures, workers would "get the work done" without further interference. Research limitations/implications:The critical research approach may be applied to a wide range of cases in which informal or professional work organization collides with change programmes driven by management. Future research is encouraged to investigate more closely how CoPs gain access to formal and informal power by enrolling lower-level managers in their joint enterprise and worldview. Practical implications:Managers should be aware that attempts to rationalize communitybased work forms may lead to dysfunctional patterns of organizational decoupling.Originality/value: This study is one of the first to empirically examine the relationship between CoPs and manufacturing rationalization.

Accidents and incidents, such as the capsizing of the anchor handling vessel Bourbon Dolphin in 2007 and the unintended list of the drilling rig Scarabeo 8 in 2012, underline the need for addressing sensemaking in safety-critical situations in the maritime domain to reduce risks. Sensemaking and risks must be understood as a part of the organizational context of the incidents. This paper presents the results of a comprehensive qualitative literature review conducted to establish more knowledge on sensemaking in the context of safety-critical situations and on the relation between the concepts of sensemaking and resilience. In the obtained literature sensemaking is used as a frame of reference for understanding accidents; it is used in relation to critical situations or complex operations in general; it is described by some as a process creating situational awareness; and it is explained by others mainly in terms of how it relates to resilience. Sensemaking creates the context for being resilient; at the same time sources of resilience help to make sense of the situation. Few authors provide explicit characteristics of sensemaking in safety-critical situations, where discrepancies can be supported by redundant systems or by training to ensure the needed questioning attitude. There is a lack of literature regarding sensemaking in safety-critical situations and in relation to resilience that also addresses important aspects of training and system design.