Advertisement

Development of a Scenario Analysis Method for the Analysis of Complex Changes

  • Knut Øien
  • Lars Bodsberg
  • Stig Ole Johnsen
  • Trygve Steiro
  • John Monsen
Conference paper

Abstract

In this paper we describe a method for the analysis of safety effects of complex technical and organizational changes. The method is based on CRIOP 2003, which is a scenario analysis method focusing on the possibility and ability of the control room operators to handle crisis situations.

Keywords

Scenario Analysis Human Machine Interface Safety Effect Norsk Hydro Offshore Installation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Øien K, Guttormsen G, Hauge S, Sklet S, Steiro T, Monsen J. Experience with complex technical and organizational changes in the offshore petroleum industry. ESREL’03, Maastricht, 2003, pp 1197-1204Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Øien K, Guttormsen G, Hauge S, Sklet S, Steiro T. Tomorrows HES analyses for the assessment of technical and organizational changes. Project report 2002. SINTEF Report STF38 F02423. SINTEF Industrial Management, Trondheim, 2002. (In Norwegian)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ingstad O, Bodsberg L. CRIOP: a scenario-method for evaluation of the offshore control center. SINTEF Report STF75 A89028. SINTEF Safety & Reliability, Trondheim, 1990Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sten T, Bodsberg, L, Grefstad, JE. A scenario-method for evaluation of control centres at offshore oil and gas production installations. ESREL’99, Munich, 1999, pp 1303–1308Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    NORSOK Standard S-002. Work Environment. Rev. 3, November 1997. http://www. standard.no/standard/NORSOK_standards/2161/S-002.pdfGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Norwegian Petroleum Directorate. Guidelines to regulations relating to design and outfitting of facilities etc. in the petroleum activities (the Facilities Regulations). 2002, http;//www.npd.no/regelverk/r2002/Innretningsforskriften_Veiledning_e.htmGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Johnsen SO, Bjørkli C, Steiro T, Fartum H, Haukenes H, Skriver J. CRIOP 2003: A scenario method for crisis intervention and operability analysis. SINTEF Report STF38 A03424. SINTEF Industrial Management, Trondheim, 2003Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ISO 11064. Ergonomic design of control centres — Part 1: Principles for the design of control centres. 2001. — Part 2: Principles for the arrangement of control suites. 2001.-Parts 3: Control room layout. 2000Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Norwegian Petroleum Directorate. Principles for alarm system design. YA-711, Feb 2001Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Norwegian Petroleum Directorate. Human factors in control rooms — a revision method. 2003. (In Norwegian)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hollnagel E. Cognitive reliability and error analysis method (CREAM). Elsevier, UK, 1998Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    øien K, Hauge S, Sklet S, Monsen J. A barrier change analysis method (BCAM). PSAM7/ESREL’04, Berlin, 2004. (To be published)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Norsk Hydro. Planning and execution of psycho-social analysis (Demand-Resource Analysis). NHT-OSL-WI-102, 2001Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Knut Øien
    • 1
  • Lars Bodsberg
    • 1
  • Stig Ole Johnsen
    • 1
  • Trygve Steiro
    • 1
  • John Monsen
    • 2
  1. 1.SINTEF Industrial ManagementTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.Norsk HydroBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations