Abstract
Errors made by drilling teams were observed during simulator-based exercises that formed part of a well control training course. Each course lasted four days and comprises both non-technical and technical theory with five simulator-based exercises. The exercises are observed for key team non-technical skills (NTS). In feedback sessions, the observers debriefed the team members about their areas of effective NTS performance and also where improvements could be made. This paper will specifically focus on the errors (i.e. performance that was classified as either ‘marginally below’ or ‘well below’ expectations) made by the teams during 105 observed exercises. An understanding of such errors will allow future training programs to focus on areas for improvement and designing training that transfers into the real rig-site.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Flin, R., O’Connor, P., Crichton, M.: Safety at the Sharp End: A Guide to Non-technical Skills. Ashgate, Aldershot (2008)
GIHRE (Group Interaction in High Risk Environments): Enhancing performance in high risk environments. Recommendations for the use of behavioural markers. Berlin (2001)
van Avermaete, J.A.G., Kruijsen, E.A.C.: NOTECHS: The Evaluation of Non-technical Skills of Multi-pilot Aircrew in Relation to the JAR-FCL Requirements (Project Report CR 98443). NLR, Amsterdam (1998)
Fletcher, G., Flin, R., McGeorge, P., Glavin, R., Maran, N., Patey, R.: Anaesthetists’ non-technical skills (ANTS): Evaluation of a behavioural marker system. Br. J. Anaesth. 90, 580–588 (2003)
Yule, S., Flin, R., Maran, N., Rowley, D., Youngson, G., Paterson-Brown, S.: Surgeons’ non-technical skills in the operating room: reliability testing of the NOTSS behavior rating system. World J. Surg. 32(4), 548–556 (2008)
Hopkins, A.: Disastrous Decisions: The Human and Organisational Causes of the Gulf of Mexico Blowout. CCH, Australia (2012)
Energy Institute: Guidance on crew resource management (CRM) and non-technical skills training programmes. Report prepared by Energy Institute, 1st edn, London (2014)
IOGP: Guidelines for implementing well operations crew resource management training. Report no 502. International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, London (2014)
Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J., Weaver, J.: Command and control teams: Principles for training and assessment. In: Flin, R., Arbuthnot, K. (eds.) Incident Command: Tales from the Hot Seat. Ashgate, Aldershot, UK (2002)
Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J.A.: The anatomy of team training. In: Tobias, L., Fletcher, D. (eds.) Handbook on Research in Training. MacMillan, New York (1997)
Hamman, W.R.: The complexity of team training: what we have learned from aviation and its applications to medicine. Qual. Saf. Health Care 13(1), 72–79 (2004)
Weaver, S.J., Salas, E., Lyons, R., Lazzara, E.H., Rosen, M.A., DiazFranados, D., Grim, J.G., Augenstein, J.S., Birnbach, D.J., King, H.: Simulation-based team training at the sharp end: A qualitative study of simulation-based team training design, implementation, and evaluation in healthcare. J. Emergencies, Trauma Shock 3(4), 369–377 (2010)
Moffat, S., Crichton, M.: Investigation non-technical skills through team behavioral markers in oil and gas simulation-based exercises. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE 2015) and the Affiliated Conferences, AHFE 2015, Las Vegas (2015)
Reason, J.: Human Error. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990)
Stanton, N.A., Salmon, P.M., Rafferty, L.A., Walker, G.H., Baber, C., Jenkins, D.P.: Human Factors Methods: A Practical Guide for Engineering and Design, 2nd edn. Ashgate, Aldershot (2013)
Woods, D.D., Dekker, S., Cook, R., Johannesen, L., Sarter, N.: Behind Human Error. Ashgate, UK (2010)
Fanning, R.M., Gaba, D.M.: The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. Simul. Healthcare 2(2), 115–125 (2007)
Flin, R., O’Connor, P., Crichton, M.: Safety at the Sharp End: A Guide to Non-technical Skills. Ashgate, Aldershot (2008)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix: Full Typology of Observed Cognitive Errors by Category and Rating
Appendix: Full Typology of Observed Cognitive Errors by Category and Rating
Team behavioural marker | Type of error | Marginally below expectations | Well below expectations | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Count | % | Count | % | ||
Team situation awareness | Information not shared with relevant other team members | 25 | 17 | 6 | 11 |
Distractions during operations (no sterile cockpit) | 19 | 13 | 12 | 21 | |
Too much information available but not being paid attention too | 15 | 10 | 0 | 0 | |
Losing track of the current situation | 11 | 8 | 6 | 11 | |
Information present but missed | 11 | 8 | 3 | 5 | |
Accept only one assessment of situation (Tunnel vision) | 10 | 7 | 7 | 12 | |
Data misinterpreted | 10 | 7 | 2 | 4 | |
Fixated on non-existing problems | 9 | 6 | 2 | 4 | |
Failing to challenge the assumptions made by other team members | 9 | 6 | 2 | 4 | |
Poor structure to tool box talk | 8 | 6 | 0 | 0 | |
Important information disregarded | 5 | 3 | 10 | 18 | |
Initial parameters not recorded | 5 | 3 | 1 | 2 | |
Confirmation bias (looking for what they expected to see) | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | |
Actions carried out without other team members being advised | 3 | 2 | 6 | 11 | |
Total number of errors | 143 | 57 | |||
Team decision Making | Team members not contributing to decision making process | 30 | 21 | 19 | 29 |
Choosing first option discussed and no contingencies considered | 22 | 15 | 26 | 39 | |
No-one taking responsibility for making decisions | 21 | 15 | 3 | 5 | |
Options discussed but selected option not articulated | 17 | 12 | 3 | 5 | |
Team dividing into separate groups and making different decisions | 14 | 10 | 4 | 6 | |
Team members not assertively presenting their opinions or option(s) | 12 | 8 | 3 | 5 | |
Individual team members making decisions without involving other team members | 10 | 7 | 2 | 3 | |
Lots of discussion but no actual decision made | 9 | 6 | 6 | 9 | |
Inexperienced team members not being invited to contribute during decision making process | 7 | 5 | 0 | 0 | |
Total number of errors | 142 | 66 | |||
Not verifying information being exchanged | 44 | 22 | 28 | 25 | |
Incorrect use of open or closed questioning | 34 | 17 | 14 | 13 | |
Unclear/non-specific instructions given or comments made | 24 | 12 | 18 | 16 | |
Use of leading questions | 19 | 9 | 0 | 0 | |
Multiple conversations taking place simultaneously | 16 | 8 | 6 | 5 | |
Roles not confirmed or allocated | 14 | 7 | 19 | 17 | |
Team members not listening or paying attention | 13 | 6 | 5 | 4 | |
Team members not participating in team discussions | 13 | 6 | 13 | 12 | |
Missing or poor handover | 7 | 3 | 0 | 0 | |
Interruptions while others speaking | 7 | 3 | 7 | 6 | |
Interference when other team members are performing tasks | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
Team members ignoring input from others during discussions | 7 | 3 | 2 | 2 | |
Total number of errors | 201 | 112 |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Crichton, M.T., Moffat, S., Crichton, L.M. (2017). Exploring Observed Cognitive Error Types in Teams Working in Simulated Drilling Environments. In: Cetiner, S., Fechtelkotter, P., Legatt, M. (eds) Advances in Human Factors in Energy: Oil, Gas, Nuclear and Electric Power Industries. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 495. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41950-3_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41950-3_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-41949-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-41950-3
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)