Pre-Workshop Activities
Pre-workshop activities in the presented case should aim at enhancing the understanding the company’s staff has about the issues a workshop will address. British Petroleum (PLC) should host a pre-brief workshop, discussing the questions that will be raised during the event. Moreover, as one of the pre-workshop activities, the company should prepare and agree on the list of attendees and design an agenda for the workshop (Hillson & Simon, 2012). Such an approach will ensure that the workshop will be well-organized and beneficial for the participants.
Agenda for the Workshop
Figure 1. Agenda for a two-day risk workshop (Hillson & Simon, 2012).
Figure 1 presents a risk workshop agenda for British Petroleum (PLC). Day 1 activities are focused on identifying and outlining the possible risks, while day 2 ones aim at developing strategies that can help the company to mitigate possible adverse outcomes. The purpose of the introduction is important because it is helpful for starting the workshop and communicating with the participants. Addressing the objectives of the workshop and presenting the project background are crucial parts of the agenda, too, because they help to educate the company’s staff about the significance of prevention and mitigation measures. The explanation of the risk management process is also relevant for the case because, currently, there seems to be a lack of preventive strategies, and the number of incidents is high (Hunter, 2008).
Day 2 will start from the recap, which will help to summarize the facts and significant data discussed on day 1. The assessment of probability and possible impacts is highly relevant for the case. It is vital to address what incidents, such as an explosion, can occur in the future and what effect they may have. Risk categorization is important for the case, too, because it is crucial to remove the ones described wrongly or do not refer to incidents or a lack of safety measures. The identification of risk on day 1 should be followed by the development of initial responses since it may help the company to address possible problems and incidents timely and minimize the number of victims. The nomination of risk owners is relevant, too, because this way, British Petroleum (PLC) can assign prevention and mitigation tasks to particular individuals.
Threats
Figure 2. Risk register (Hillson & Simon, 2012).
Figure 2 presents the possible threats arising from the case of British Petroleum (PLC). The first threat is associated with equipment malfunction due to the lack of regular inspection. For instance, the case reports that the pipes workers use are thinned, but no one has fixed this problem yet (Hunter, 2008). The second threat is explosions due to poor safety measures, which can be considered significant, as it already happened in 2005, harming 180 individuals and killing 15 (Hunter, 2008). The third threat is the withdrawal of resources from safety-related assets caused by the lack of control over the management personnel. The case study reveals that this problem was already identified in the past, which means that it can occur again (Hunter, 2008).
Next, the pressure of the management personnel and the lack of communication between the company’s leaders and its employees, resulting in a poor reporting process, is another crucial threat. In the company, workers are forced not to report injuries and safety violations, which prevents British Petroleum (PLC) from ensuring a safe environment for them (Hunter, 2008). The fifth threat is the lack of sources aiming at ensuring safety as a result of failure to invest in safety measures. The presented case reveals that this threat is crucial because the safety of the workers is already compromised since the company strives to save money.
Probability and Impacts
The probability and impacts of the third threat are set in a way that shows the significance of timely preventive measures and appropriate responses. For instance, the case of equipment malfunction may result in both financial losses and staff injuries (Kadhim & Ali, 2017). Regular assessment of equipment is more feasible and cost-effective than the mitigation of the outcomes of its failure. The same reasoning is applicable to the cases of poor safety measures and explosions. The withdrawal of sources can be mitigated by the timely establishment of a committee controlling the use of finances, which has higher effectiveness than the measures aimed at helping the people already affected by an incident. The establishment of effective communication is vital to reduce the pressure the company places on its employees. Post-response probability, in this case, is to implement educational training sessions aimed at teaching workers and management personnel to discuss challenging issues with each other. The impact of the problem is already adverse; however, it is possible to mitigate it before it becomes more severe. Finally, the establishment of funds for safety measures can cost the company much money; however, if British Petroleum (PLC) fails to do so, it may have to ask investors for support and mitigate the outcomes of poor safety programs. As a result, it may be more significant for the organization to establish the funds timely.
Opportunities
The case reveals three significant opportunities the company may utilize to enhance safety for its employees. The first one is establishing appropriate safety guidelines and using checklists to assess the level of safety for the firm’s workers. The employees report safety violations, which means that the guidelines do not exist or are not followed properly, and they are not the company’s priority. The second opportunity is developing effective communication between the employees and the employers. The company needs to ensure that the management personnel does not put pressure on workers and that all individuals are allowed to report possible injuries and safety violations. Currently, the organization does not seem concerned about the challenges its employees’ encounter, which results in the increased number of small injuries (Hunter, 2008). Third, the organization should allocate sources for designing appropriate safety and preventive measures, as, currently, it tries to save money by reducing its funding of such causes (Hunter, 2008).
References
Bryant, M. J., & Hunter, T. (2008). British Petroleum (PLC) and John Browne: A culture of risk beyond petroleum (A). Ontario, Canada: Ivey Publishing.
Hillson, D., & Simon, P. (2012). Practical project risk management: The ATOM methodology (2nd ed.). Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Kadhim, M. G., & Ali, M. T. (2017). A critical review on corrosion and its prevention in the oilfield equipment. Journal of Petroleum Research & Studies, (14), 162-189.