Barrier Change Analysis Method

  • Knut Øien
  • Stein Hauge
  • Snorre Sklet
  • John Monsen
Conference paper


“Change is the mother of twins — progress and trouble” [1]. In some areas of operation, change is the very mechanism for survival. In the exploitation of non-renewable resources, like oil and gas, the operations and maintenance costs will at some point exceed the revenues. In order to maximize the overall exploitation of the reservoir, the cost side has to be reduced and the key word is“change” — technical, operational, and organizational changes. In particular remote operation and de-manning are relevant measures to extend the tail production phase. Another topical issue is major replacements of old equipment, e. g., the safety and automation system, due to lack of spare parts and problems in maintaining sufficient competence on yesterday’s systems. The central issue then, from a safety perspective, is how to analyze such complex changes with respect to their effect on the risk of accidents (the“trouble” part of change).


Performance Standard Quantitative Risk Assessment Barrier Performance Safety Barrier Norsk Hydro 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Johnsen WG. MORT Safety assurance systems. Marcel Dekker, New York, 1980Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Murphy DM, Paté-Cornell ME. The SAM framework: modeling the effects of management factors on human behavior in risk analysis. Risk Analysis 1996; 16: 501–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Øien K. A framework for the establishment of organizational risk indicators. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 2001; 74: 147–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hourtolou D, Salvi S. ARAMIS project: development of an integrated accidental risk assessment methodology for industries in the framework of Seveso II directive. ESREL′03, Maastricht, 2003, pp 829-836Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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
  6. 6.
    Firing F, Thomassen O, Sørum M. System for mapping and monitoring of technical safety — safety reviews of Statoil’s installations. 11th International Conference and Exhibition on Major Hazards Offshore, London, 2002Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Øien K, Bodsberg L, Johnsen SO, Steiro T, Monsen J. Development of a scenario analysis method for the analysis of complex changes. PSAM7/ESREL′04, Berlin, 2004. (To be published)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vinnem JE, Aven T, Hundseid H, Vassmyr K-A, Vollen F, Øien K. Risk assessment for offshore installations in the operational phase. ESREL′03, Maastricht, 2003, pp 1607-1614Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sklet S. Comparison of some selected methods for accident investigation. Esreda seminar 12-13 May, 2003Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Norwegian Petroleum Directorate. Regulations relating to management in the petroleum activities (the Management Regulations). 2001.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Knut Øien
    • 1
  • Stein Hauge
    • 1
  • Snorre Sklet
    • 1
  • John Monsen
    • 2
  1. 1.SINTEF Industrial ManagementTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.Norsk HydroBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations