Base imponible: concepto y mé- mé-todos de determinación

7.2.1. Participants

The objective of expert testing for any developed tool is to check its usability in real life. The experts contributed to highlight limitations and help identify areas of improvement. Besides, the experts that were chosen to participate in this action came from the maintenance departments where MASRAT was sensible to be used.

A request was sent to the Algerian Petroleum Institute (IAP) management to hold a workshop gathering experts from maintenance personnel representing the three branches of activity of the Company (oil and gas production, pipeline transportation, and gas and refining plants) with the aim of making recommendations to top management of the Company. The approval was got to

- 148 -

invite 30 experts (10 persons per branch) for one day and a half workshop. Skilled and experienced people were invited in order to have an effect on the results of validation. Some of these people were located during the validation phase (chapter 6) and were proposed to participate in a workshop in order to carry out this testing while others were chosen by their respective directions.

Actually, there have been two (02) groups of actors in the workshop: the principal actors i.e. the experts from maintenance departments called “the participants” in this thesis and the facilitators. For evaluating the workshop, three (03) actions were retained, namely an immediate evaluation, a questionnaire, and an interview. The first and the second actions concerned all of the actors whereas the third one was directed to the facilitators. The results and analysis of the responses are described in the evaluation section.

7.2.2. The Workshop Structure

After the validation process of the tool, a workshop was held in the Algerian Petroleum Institute (IAP) 27-28 of January 2013. Among the 30 experts from maintenance departments (oil and gas production and pipeline transportation, and gas and refining plants) that were invited, only 23 persons attended the workshop, the others did not for security matters. Among the attendees, 04 were managers (head of maintenance department). An explanatory introduction was sent to the participants explaining the expectations and the objectives of the workshop (see appendix 4).

The objectives set for the workshop were:

a) Communicate and study the data collected during the action of validation,

b) Assess the resilience of the maintenance system and determine the different profiles and maturity levels,

c) Identify strategies for improvement, and d) Make recommendations to top management.

To achieve these objectives, the following activities were planned.

 Invite experts from maintenance department of all branches of the Company to the workshop

 Send materials to participants and facilitators to prepare the workshop  Hold the workshop

- 149 -

 Make an explanatory presentation about MASRAT and workshop objectives followed by a debate

 Split the participants into three groups (ateliers) to study the three identified factors (resources, time pressure, and supervision/coordination)

 Use MASRAT to achieve objectives  Find out suggestions to improve MASRAT

The workshop consisted of two parts. First, a presentation to the participants of the new approach as well as the background underlying the development of MASRAT and the data collected during the validation process were done; this was followed by a debate that concentrated mainly on the new approach. Second, three (03) ateliers were set according to the factors that were studied i.e. resources, time pressure, and supervision/coordination.

In the ateliers, the participants reviewed the 28 items related to the four (04) abilities (ability to respond, to monitor, to anticipate, and to learn) and assessed the resilience of the system. Then, item, factors, aspects, and department profiles were determined. Afterwards, the maturity level according to a scale ranging from MAL 1 to MEL (excellence) was computed. This was followed by the identification of strategies for improvement based on SWOT analysis. Finally, recommendations were made both for department and corporate level; figure 7.1 shows the structure of the workshop. Section 7.3 addresses the activity of each of the three ateliers.

- 150 -

7.2.3. The Workshop Process

In the following, the implementation process is declined. It consisted of:  Committing stakeholders to this action,

 Describing the implementation process,

 Identifying specific aspects that should be looked at,  Performing the workshop

 Getting immediate feedback

 Sending questionnaire to participants and facilitators after the workshop to comment on,

 Interviewing facilitators, and

 Eventually carrying out analysis of data collected.

7.2.3.1. Stakeholders’ Engagement

The process of MASRAT implementation and goals was explained to IAP managers to help get approval from SONATRACH managers. With respect to the field-testing (from validation to the expert panel testing in a workshop), a total commitment was obtained from top management. However, participants and facilitators deemed the time allocated and imposed to the workshop very short.

7.2.3.2. Program Description

In this workshop, experts from maintenance departments of the company met and debated about the prevailing situation and exchanged experiences. Particularly, the resilience of the maintenance system was evaluated for the first time by means of the MAintenance Resilience Assessment Tool (MASRAT). System profiles and maturity levels were determined. Strategies to improve current situation for both corporate and local level were identified. These strategies might be studied within each department to determine the appropriate mechanisms of implementation. Finally, recommendations were made for top management.

- 151 -

7.2.3.3. Specific Aspects

i. Statement of need

The study of human factors in the maintenance of oil and gas assets is limited in comparison to other industries such as aviation and nuclear as it has been shown in chapters 2 and 3. In response to this, the use of MASRAT was intended to remedy this limitation by studying human factors in the maintenance system of the Algerian National Oil and Gas Company to achieve safety excellence based on resilience engineering,

ii. Expectations

As stated earlier, the usability of MASRAT was tested in real world and suggestions to improve MASRAT were expected.

iii. Activities

In the validation phase, meetings with maintenance staffs were held. During these meetings, MASRAT was presented and a debate followed each presentation. Some participants were seen as experts that could enhance the level of the workshop if they were invited. In addition, managers at corporate level were solicited to propose experts from their branch. Thirty people from maintenance department of all branches of the Company were invited to attend the workshop. Materials were sent to participants and facilitators to prepare the workshop. An explanatory presentation about MASRAT and workshop objectives that was followed by a debate was carried out. The participants were then split into three groups (ateliers) to study the three identified factors. They were asked to use MASRAT and go through the twenty-eight (28) items of the tool.

iv. Stage of development

It concerned the MASRAT implementation phase to see what happens in the real world.

v. Context

MASRAT was used to achieve research objectives.

vi. Resources

Materials were sent to participants and facilitators to prepare the workshop. In the ateliers, templates were distributed with the objective to go through the 28 items in one day maximum

- 152 -

according to the deadline imposed by IAP management. Logs were prepared and given to participants

vii. Benefits

The values or benefits of this action consisted of testing the usability of MASRAT and gaining suggestions to improve it. Moreover, it allowed identify strategies for improvement to implement at both department and corporate levels as well as measure the system’s resilience. Besides, it entailed making recommendations to top management to improve the system of maintenance and beginning the continuous improvement journey.

7.2.4. Communication about the Validation Phase

During the first part that lasted half day, the expected activity of the workshop was presented to the audience. An introduction was first given where it has been shown that (1) maintenance activities are generally labour intensive hence accidents prone, (2) human factors are most times difficult to identify, and (3) research within the oil and gas industry with respect to human factors in maintenance management is limited. Research in safety had focused on accidents so far and traditional risk assessment techniques as well as accident causation models have been unable to handle current complex safety critical systems. Therefore, the urgent need to develop something different to address such systems as well as to make the shift to understand why things go right too were emphasised. The proposed solution lied in the use of a new approach based on Resilience Engineering and a way to measure the system resilience. MASRAT that was developed to this end was then presented. The development and validation phase were reviewed. The different improvements of MASRAT until the last version were then given. The participants and facilitators were invited to debate. As per the different visits to maintenance departments, the debate concentrated mainly on the new approach based on resilience engineering. Some participants that have contributed during the validation phase stressed on the fact that the meaning of some items were difficult to grasp first instance when they had to give a score. The answer was the activity during the atelier would surely help clarify anything that looks obscure.