IN 1709 – Human and Organisational Performance (HOP)

 

1.1 What's the Difference?

 

Human Factors (ergonomics) tends to have a design and interaction focus and is concerned with system performance and the ”interactions among humans and other elements of a system”. It is about ensuring a good ‘fit’ between people, the equipment they use, the task they carry out and the environment in which they work. Effective use of human factors will make work safer, healthier and more productive.

Human Performance tends to have a behaviour modification focus and is concerned with individual and team performance (and organisations, in the case of HOP) – what people do, and how. It is frequently associated with safe behaviour, leadership, culture, and teamwork with the primary methods of intervention being training, coaching, awareness-raising, and behaviour change methods that tend not to be design-led.

In recent years, interest in HOP has increased with both client and member organisations adopting this as an approach to improving safety and operational outcomes. The historical view of safety has been that organisations considered their technologies, operational procedures, and safety management systems as being robust, reliable, and fit for purpose. Incidents and accidents only occurred when workers interacted with them and so drew the conclusion that the problem must lie with the worker.

 

1.2 HOP is a Philosophy

Rather than being a programme for managing human error, it is an operating philosophy, providing a new way of looking at work, people and the systems in which people get work done.

One core principle of HOP is the recognition that making mistakes is normal: error is part of the human  condition. An organisation’s processes and systems greatly influence employees’ decisions, choices, and actions, and consequently, their likelihood of successful work performance, i.e. quality work completed safely, on time and on budget.

Unlike a risk management programme that works hard to eliminate, mitigate, or control risk, HOP assumes that mistakes will happen. In essence, humans try hard, but they’re not perfect. No amount of training, planning or equipment can make them perfect.

The HOP philosophy focuses on enhancing organisational processes and systems with an understanding that humans are fallible. Understanding this, organisations are better able to recognise, understand and address risk. The HOP perspective for organisations is to treat people as problem-solvers rather than as problems. This is a better way to design safer systems and work towards organisational excellence. Organisations deploying HOP will see:

• significant improvements in employee engagement for safety
  
  
• increased ownership of safety among employees
  
  
• improved work quality and system reliability, as well as safety and health performance
  
  
• greater levels of overall operational excellence.

The broader the integration of HOP (H&S, Environment, Engineering, Quality, Finance, etc.), the broader and greater those benefits will be.

 

1.3 HOP Principles

Building on work on Human Performance by the US Department of Energy, in the early 2000s, Dr Todd Conklin promoted Human and Organisational Performance. Dr Conklin proposed five core principles of Human and Organisational Performance:

• Human Error is Normal

Mistakes are inevitable because humans are fallible. Even the best people make errors, and systems should be designed to anticipate and tolerate them.

• Blame Fixes Nothing

Assigning blame after an incident doesn’t lead to improvement. It often prevents learning and discourages open reporting of issues.

• Learning is Vital

Organisations must actively seek to learn from failures and near misses. Understanding what went wrong helps prevent future incidents.

• Context Drives Behaviour

People’s actions are influenced by the systems and environments they work in. To change behaviour, you must understand and improve the context.

• How You Respond Matters

The way leaders and organisations respond determines whether people will feel safe to speak up and whether the organisation will learn and improve.

 

1.4 HOP – Event Response

Nearly all experts agree integrating HOP concepts into an organisation’s event reporting and response processes should be done very early in their HOP deployment efforts. Some pointers to doing that can include:

• Adjust your thinking about events from “why” the event happened, to “how” the event happened:
  
  
  • The “why” mindset naturally leads to a person that messed up, and easily descends to discussions on blame.
    
    
  • Asking “how” directs your thinking to weaknesses and opportunities in systems and the work environment, which leads to learning and improvement.
    
    
• Provide training on the HOP principles for everyone in your organisation who might receive reports of events, failures or mistakes from employees, and coach them in proper response techniques and actions.
  
  
• Ensure your event response process includes time to learn about an event before any response actions are taken or conclusions are drawn.
  
  
• Remove any arbitrary deadlines and timetables for responding to an event or any other expectations that may rush judgement or response actions.
  
  
• Eliminate any processes that automatically enact discipline for failure to follow procedures, even if the procedure relates to high-risk or high-consequence work.
  
  
• Taking the time to learn about an event should ALWAYS happen before any decisions are made or actions are taken.
  
  
• Replace the language of crime and punishment traditionally used following an event, with language that better represents the goal of learning and improving. Suggestions include:
  
  
  • Replace investigation with event analysis or event learning.
    
    
  • Replace witness with interviewee.
    
    
  • Replace evidence with facts, data and information.

 

1.5 Challenges and Solutions

While optimising human and organisational assets can lead to significant benefits, businesses often encounter challenges in the process. Here are some common obstacles and strategies for overcoming them:

1. Resistance to change: Change can be met with resistance from employees who are comfortable with the status quo. To overcome this challenge, businesses can focus on promoting a growth mindset, providing clear communication about the reasons for change, and involving employees in the decision-making process.
   
   
2. Siloed thinking: Silos can hinder collaboration and communication between different departments or teams within an organisation. Breaking down silos requires a concerted effort to promote cross-functional collaboration, the transparent sharing of information, and alignment of goals and incentives across departments.
   
   
3. Resource constraints: Limited resources, whether financial, human, or technological, can pose challenges to optimising human and organisational assets. To overcome resource constraints, businesses can prioritise investments in initiatives that provide the greatest return on investment, leverage external partnerships and collaborations, and explore creative solutions to maximise resource utilisation.
   
   
4. Cultural barriers: Organisational culture plays a significant role in shaping behavior and attitudes within an organisation. Addressing cultural barriers requires leadership commitment, open communication, and a willingness to challenge existing norms and practices that may be hindering performance.

The marine contracting industry relies on advanced human-machine interfaces, and its work activities have an increasingly complex organisational structure. Increasingly, work is performed by distributed teams and by remotely controlled technology.

Human and Organisational Performance (HOP) has become an important and integral part of the industry’s approach to improving safety and operational efficiency in the construction and maintenance of offshore energy facilities.

Preventing fatalities requires more than well-written protocols – it demands systems that anticipate human fallibility and adapt to real-world challenges.

Integrating HOP principles into fatal risk management can transform those protocols into resilient, learning-focused tools that actively reduce risk.

HOP isn’t a separate initiative. It’s the foundation for designing and managing safety systems that work in the dynamic and high-stakes environments where fatal risks occur.

 

3.1 Recommended Reading

If you would like to learn more, please consider reading one or more of the books listed below. There are many books on HOP and HOP-related topics. This is just a short list to get you started on your HOP journey. Each of the books listed below uses real world examples, provides practical approaches and is written in a fairly easy reading format.

• Pre-Accident Investigations: An Introduction to Organizational Safety, Todd Conklin
  
  
• The Field Guide to Understanding Human Error, Sidney Dekker
  
  
• The 5 Principles of Human Performance: A Contemporary Update of the Building Blocks of Human Performance for the New View of Safety, by Todd Conklin
  
  
• Humble Inquiry: The Gentle Art of Asking Instead of Telling, by Edgar H. Schein
  
  
• Safety-I and Safety-II: The Past and Future of Safety Management, by Prof. Erik Hollnagel
  
  
• Bob’s Guide to Operational Learning: How to Think Like a Human and Organizational Performance (HOP) Coach, by Bob Edwards and Andrea Baker
  
  
• Risk-based Thinking: Managing the Uncertainty of Human Error in Operations, by Tony Muschara
  
  
• Disastrous Decisions: The Human and Organisational Causes of the Gulf of Mexico Blowout, by Andrew Hopkins

 

3.2 Websites and Podcasts

• https://safetydifferently.com/
  
  
• https://hopcoach.net/
  
  
• The HOP Nerd | Sam Goodman | Human and Organizational Performance

 

3.3 Videos

• YouTube – Safety Differently – The Movie
  
  
• YouTube – 2018 USW HSE Conference: The New View of Safety with Todd Conklin
  
  
• Being human | Toolbox (energyinst.org)

 

3.4 Guidance from Others

• IOGP 642 – Learning from normal work
• IMCA Information Note 1681 – Human and Organisational Performance