ARCHIVED - Session 4 - Building an Effective Management System - Bonnie Andriachuk, LLB - Enbridge Pipelines
This page has been archived on the Web
Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.
Bonnie Andriachuk, LLB
- How do you manage, control, and avoid fatigue in operators (drivers)?
- Is there such a thing as being overly safe?
- I understand that a management system has standard elements. Why do companies not use all the elements?
- What is your definition of "effective" in relation to a management system?
- Can you speak to the inherent risks or strengths related to adopting a prescriptive approach vs. an approach focused on management systems / Leadership?
- Can you comment on the role of risk reduction and shifts to inherently safer technologies? What is the company role? What is the regulators role?
How do you manage, control, and avoid fatigue in operators (drivers)?
At Enbridge, there are a number of specific programs related to fatigue management. Control centre operators and their supervisors under take regular awareness training. Work spaces have been designed to counter fatigue including adjustable desks that allow workers to stand and special lighting. Work schedules are controlled. Regular breaks are incorporated into work plans. This is an area of research for Enbridge as well, including a pilot test with special lenses to screen out certain light spectrums. For other work groups including maintenance, operators and driving positions, work schedules are closely monitored, regular breaks are incorporated and awareness of this critical human factor is high.
Is there such a thing as being overly safe?
No - following procedures and being inherently aware of safety risks should always be a priority. Enbridge leadership is changing the way employees think about safety and operational reliability, moving from a mindset where some number of incidents were viewed as inevitable because of mechanical and human failures, to one that strives for zero incidents. At Enbridge, Operational Reliability means achieving industry leadership in safety (process, public and personal), the reliability and integrity of our pipelines and facilities, and protection of the environment. This is our number one priority because being a leader in all of these areas enables everything else we do, including sustaining the growth of our company into the future. Our safety management system reinforce the belief that safety is everyone’s responsibility. Our front line workers understand that they have both the responsibility and the accountability to stop unsafe work and they know that they have the full support of the entire company. We continually monitor our safety culture to ensure that we have alignment with our goals. Our commitment to safety cannot be compromised. We also know that excellence in safety means that we have the operational discipline to be efficient and effective in our overall operations which drives overall operational performance results. Put simply, safety excellence is good for bottom line earnings.
I understand that a management system has standard elements. Why do companies not use all the elements?
While management systems often have elements that are standard, they may not be well documented or may be labeled in different terms. The elements are often broadly defined, and it is how the elements are then supported by clear accountabilities, defined processes and procedures that make up the elements, communication, training, implementation and monitoring that is important.
What is your definition of "effective" in relation to a management system?
As Enbridge is looking at integrated management systems (beyond just a safety management system), “effective” means being able to measure the performance of the key processes and activities in each management system to ensure corporate objectives are met and that there is continual improvement with respect to that performance.
Can you speak to the inherent risks or strengths related to adopting a prescriptive approach vs. an approach focused on management systems / Leadership?
There are strengths and risks to both approaches. Often though, prescriptive approaches result in more of a check box audit approach to compliance. Prescriptive measures work well for setting minimal requirements. Having a focus on management systems and leadership allows for greater flexibility, but also, if done well, becomes part of the culture of an organization and is more effective. Management systems/leadership work better in relation to continually improving performance above minimal requirements.
Can you comment on the role of risk reduction and shifts to inherently safer technologies? What is the company role? What is the regulators role?
As part of an overall risk management system, mitigation of risks can occur in many ways. One such way to mitigate risk is to research, pilot and implement technology in a manner that is safe and that improves safety. Regulators should set the minimal requirements around tools and technologies. Companies should have appropriate risk management processes in place to mitigate and address risk in a reasonable manner and that meets their corporate objectives around safety. In order to do so, a risk management process needs to be able to measure risk, determine which mitigation factors are working to continually reduce specific risks.
- Date modified: