Connected by Risk

September 24th, 2020

Watch the recording now

Connected by Risk

On September 24th, we organized our first virtual event: a process safety seminar on the topic of risk management.

In these challenging times, we all do our utmost to help contain the spread of this Covid-19 virus. Social distancing, restricted international travel, working from home, staying home as much as possible, and so on. We do everything in our power to keep everyone around us safe. This might make us feel disconnected from our family and friends, but also from our colleagues and peers.

It made us think about how we can make sure to stay connected to you. We realized that we actually are all ‘connected by risk’. Every company encounters risks, after all, risks must be taken to be successful as a company. In order to be in control of these risks, companies need to align internally and work together to create awareness. But also, companies that work together in the supply chain should connect on risk-related matters to assure safe operations altogether.

To maintain and explore this connection, we invited our entire network to attend our online process safety seminar ‘Connected by Risk’.

Unanswered questions, answered – Q&A follow-up

During ‘Connected by Risk’ we didn’t have the time to answer all questions in the Q&A session. Did you have a question that was left unanswered?
Click below to find your answer.

  1. Noted that most of your barriers are on the right side of the bowtie, which means you are mitigating the effect of the event. How about prevention, do you use the same philosophy?
    It is not unusual to have more barriers on the right hand side of the bowtie than the left. This is due to the definition of the Top Event as “the first event that occurs when you loose control of the hazard”. Once you loose control there can be many events that occur as the incident escalates, and we try to have barriers to treat each escalation.If you have a lot of barriers on the left side, you may find that they are not truly independent or effective by themselves.
  2. Are you using the BowTieXP or BowTieServer?
    BowTieServer – However we limit the access for editing in order to maintain governance on updates.
  3. Can you please give your definition of Process Safety?
    A disciplined framework for managing the integrity of hazardous operating systems and processes by applying good design principles engineering and operating practices.
  4. Did some of your barriers after the incident lead to barriers before the incident?
    Not sure if I’m reading the question correctly. Response based on possible reading, apologies if incorrect:
    – If the question refers to chaining, then yes we do chain bowties. A vessel collision for example can lead to a loss of containment from the cargo tanks;
    – If the question refers to whether a barrier can be both mitigating and preventative, then no, not in our process.
  5. Do the operations staff get a chance to input to the bowties?
    Absolutely. They own their bowties. The workshops involve the operators that have responsibilities relative to the barrier systems.
  6. Do you apply aggravated risk on the number of Threats to the Consequences? Is the same risk matrix applied as for, for instance, HAZOP or Job Safety Analysis. which focuses on single causes?
    As a qualitative process, we try to concentrate on severity in discussion of bowties. The probabilistic aspect is better analyzed in QRA.
  7. Do you consider that culture issues must be discussed before any HSE tool implementation?
    In terms of culture I am a proponent of Prof. Hopkins ‘Organizing for Safety’ model. As such I think the organizational structure is essential to drive culture and for any process to be successful. I.e. If the risk team are not empowered than the adoption of Advanced Barrier Methodology will likely not be effective as it could be.
  8. Do you have any advice on how to create awareness and commitment within the company when you are starting to roll-out a new risk management method, like the bowtie method?
    “Start with developing a sponsorship model that includes senior leaders. The drive to implement coming from the c-suite and then drive a change management plan. Our change management process follows the PROSCI ADKAR model. I.e. take the organization though:- Awareness – stakeholders to understand that the process exists and is to be implemented;
    – Desire – Stakeholders want to implement;
    – Knowledge – Stakeholders know how to implement;
    – Ability – Stakeholders have the ability to implement; and
    – Reinforcement – keep the process alive and in the front of the organizations consciousness
  9. Do you use this for audits?
    Not yet, but that is the intent.
  10. Does bowtie replace hazop or pha?
    No, not for me. Bowtie is ultimately and communication tool and it takes a lot of time establish a simple and structurally correct model. HAZOP and PHA better structured to identify detailed specific failures. As per the CCPS and EI guidance, HAZOP and PHA are great inputs for Bowtie however (although we do our bowties at the HAZID level).
  11. For which type of operations did you set-up bow-ties and when do you do that?
    Our main business is FPSO’s. We develop the bowties in early FEED (if the project has one), or as early as possible in EPCI if there is no FEED. We also developed bow ties for our operating units.As an established process we also have bowties for FSO projects, LNG terminals, enterprise risk and even COVID19 and Human Rights. In this usage we are less strict in definitions and use them as a facility to support discussion.
  12. How are you defining the SBM effectiveness levels? Is the criteria clear?
    As a qualitative process we are not strict in definition. However, we consider as guidance:
    – A = 99.9%;
    – B = 99% to 99.9%
    – C = 90% to 99%
    – D = <90%
  13. How did you handle the resistance to changing?
    We follow the PROSCI change model.
  14. How difficult is to link the bowtie barriers for active visualization of its status. Interaction with other systems?
    For us this has been the most labor intensive part of the journey. Bowties built at the scenario level need to be validated at the equipment tag level. We start with the truly catastrophic risks for the bow tie representation. For the Assets Integrity view and ‘heat map’ view this is simpler and provides useful information of Safety and Environmentally Critical Equipment across the asset.
  15. How do you communicate about such a complex bowtie?
    We don’t show all the meta data. Only the data that is relevant for the audience that is consuming.
  16. How do you make bowties a daily tool for your front line staff?
    Still in process. Barrier Vision will help. We also want to make the conversation more about bowties than Task Risk Assessments. For this, we’ve made bow ties the core of our process safety training. We have also moved the training from external facilitators to internal.
  17. How do you measure control effectiveness?
    We have some guidance that we apply based on barrier types… However, at it’s core it is a qualitative process based on educated discussion around the range of scenarios that the barrier will be effective for.
  18. How do you visualize common mode failures in your bowties?
    At present this functionality is not well captured in the tool as we would like. We enter the equipment and we can add a filter (so that common equipment appears more prominent). However, we would like the tool to identify commonalities itself. Something we are working with CGE on.
  19. How does bowtie help for managing PROJECT risk outside safety?
    We do use bowties for our main Enterprise Risks (not project risk at the moment), as well as, Human Rights, Diving, COVID-19. We find it is a useful method when we want to represent details in risks that we need to communicate on. However, for us it does not replace risk identification processes and is to labor intensive to cover every possible risk. We use it as an analysis and communication tool for our biggest risks.
  20. How does management buy-in to the use of bowties as it could expose a lot of weaknesses?
    Management have set us a target of being recognized as a high reliability organization. To be such, management is aware of the need to demonstrate ‘chronic unease’ and always ‘support the reds and challenge the greens’. i.e. they understand that it is much better to identify and act on weaknesses, before negative consequences occur. I feel very supported in my initiatives, which I update the CEO directly on every 6 months.
  21. How have you communicated complex and subtle evolutions in your risk understanding to your wider organization?
    We follow the PROSCI change model in how we develop our processes within SBM Offshore. For updates to the process, we build a senior sponsorship coalition and work on training and communication plans to take organization through the ADKAR steps from Awareness to Reinforcement. In terms of communicating the outcomes of our risk assessments there are two key aspects of our processes that have helped us here:
    1 – Firstly, we require front line workers to be involved directly in our bow tie and performance standards work. Giving them ownership of the barriers relevant to them: and
    2 – Secondly, we have moved our process training from externally to internally provided. Thereby bring ownership of the initiatives into the company.
  22. How long did it take for your group to update your bowties after the new guidance came out? (CCPS/Energy Institute)
    To do the Parent and Master Child bowties we did this rather quickly (within six months of the new guidance). However, getting the child bow ties across our fleet is an ongoing process. This is probably more to do with the fact that we are populating a lot of metadata into the child bowties (going down to equipment type and specific tasks). To build bowties to the system and high level performance standard level is very quick once the parents are defined.
  23. How long did it take to implement bowties? How did you start?
    We have had bowties for some time. However, they weren’t consistent and not really used after the project phase. The program we are in the midst of now is taking a couple of years to role through the fleet. We started corporately by defining our ‘parent/master child bow ties’ and then use them as template to map scenarios on our units. This could be done relatively quickly; however, we need to manage the workload of the ops representatives that need to be involved in the process.
  24. How much would your live barrier model cost approximately to set up for one asset?
    This is best discussed with Enablon.
  25. How often do you perform assessments of new sites locations and re-assessments?
    We follow the safety case model so we reassess before any major change and perform a detailed review and updates every 5 years.
  26. How to tackle the critical risk from kept coming? Do we need to emphasize more on the culture and people behavior or on the rules?
    I am proponent of Prof. Hopkins organizing for safety model for culture. Get the right organizational structure, competent empowered resources enacting best practices and I believe we will stay on top of major risks.
  27. In Offshore Industry, we do have executive actions i.e. safety interlock with ESD (IPF) for Gas Detection & Alarm system however in onshore locations especially, in older plants, this is for alarm only and operator intervention is required…
    Taken as a statement – good point
  28. Interesting to note that there is more tags on the RHS of the bowtie…. whilst the focus should be more on the left in an operational state…
    The number of tags on the right-hand side is to do with the complexity of barrier systems on the right. For example – on the preventative side of the bowtie for an overpressure scenario we have a PSV which is one piece of equipment with a detect, decide and act component. On the very right of the mitigation side we have evacuation, which is made up of many different pieces of equipment and human actions with a lot of redundancy and interdependencies.
  29. Is it effective to use Bowties for LOPA?
    Although adding quantitative elements into bowties can be useful, it is not true LOPA, which requires complex, rather than simple, scenario mapping.
  30. Is it not that the “independence” of the various barriers (either active or passive) are a trap we put ourselves into? In our modern socio-technical word, things cannot be really independent.
    A very good point. It is useful to apply independence where we can, but it is certainly not possible to have complete independence (particularly when you add the operator and management structure into your barrier systems). I tend to think independence is a goal we will never achieve for all barriers.
  31. Is there new software features for online bowties conduction?
    Question best discussed with CGE Risk.
  32. How deep, or in how much detail, do you develop the equipment and human performance specifications for each critical equipment and critical task?
    This is a very good fundamental question for every company to approach. Getting down to the tag and HAZOP level tasks is very time consuming. However, staying high level and generic will not get you to live barriers. Our approach is to build our scenarios to the equipment type level and then:
    – On the preventative side of the bow tie apply business rules based on commonalities to get to the detailed level for specific areas of the unit; and
    – On the right hand side the question is different. Here there is less geographical variance in how the barrier systems work, but greater complexity in the barriers themselves. Here we are looking at how do we map redundancies and interdependencies correctly.
  33. The knot was LOPC, how to visualize Fire/Explosion as next event?
    Bowtie does not show all events, just the top event. However, in the functional view the ‘next event’ will be after a barrier grouping. I.e. in-between ‘prevent ignition’ and ‘reduce amount of people impacted’.
  34. The shown bowtie is heavy on the technical side. What changes would you recommend on bowties focusing on Human interaction and processes?
    Not sure if I’m reading the question correctly. However, bowties need to follow structural rules in order to ensure that they correctly map how we can loose control of a scenario. Within the Energy Institute approach to human factors (similar reflected in the Australian NOPSEMA guidance) a ‘barrier failure’ model can be built as a separate bow tie that maps the common human reasons why any barrier could fail. The last slide I showed was based on this model.
  35. The way you are working now with bowtie has changed a lot since a couple of years ago. How do you take operational staff along in these changes? The diagram changed quite a lot in appearance.
    Indeed. We are applying the rule set which has made our bow ties more accurate in showing less barriers, but more elements. Our operators are involved in building these bow ties. The previous bowties where largely consultant driven and not widely used.
  36. To enable the “live barriers” view do you have an automated link with your CMMS or other system, or is this a manual process to change a degraded barrier to red or orange color?
    Yes – We will have an automated link to our CMMS. We are also looking at links to our incident and audit systems, as well as, a future project that will automatically link our group technical requirements to equipment level requirements. So that if a technical standard is updated due to a lesson learned, the system will flag the barrier systems on specific units that need to be reviewed to see if the update is relevant.
  37. To what level of drill down within the bowties is considered optimized? Second barrier level?
    Not sure I follow correctly; however, the detail developed and shown on our bowties depends on a few factors. Ultimately, there are two factors we consider in how we build and represent:
    – In the build we note that our live barrier model needs to have the scenario structurally correct so that indicators on equipment and people will correctly reflect the current risk exposure;
    – In how we represent (for operational usage) we want clean views that show operators the information that is useful for them, and hide any complexity that will impact their understanding.
  38. Do you use the barrier family tool of BowTieXP to group the barriers by safety functions?
    Yes we do.
  39. What challenges (and solutions) have you found in making your bowties more widely understood and actively used and useful to a wider audience?
    The barrier functionality and the importance of filtering the view for the audience has helped. As has making bowties a common theme in our communications.
  40. Who validates this bowtie study after it is completed?
    The approval of the child bowties is with the Unit Manager. However, myself and my team in our Group Operational Excellence performs a governance role in that any bowties that are to be uploaded into BowTieServer are checked and validated by us against our rules. We hope that this governance workflow will be built directly into Server in future updates.
  41. You’ve just hit on an industry sore point, getting acceptance for operational use of bowtie versus technical/safety expert use. What would you suggest is the best path to bridge that gap?
    Build the detail required for technical usage… and filter / present only the data that the reader needs. Build profiles in the viewer so that people can see the data they need only.

Did you have a question for Prof. Dr. Jop Groeneweg that was left unanswered? Check out this Q&A session following the event and find your question in one of the 5 overall themes below.

General risk management (01:44)

  1. How would you define something as vague as ‘maximal utilization’ of a person’s professional capabilities? (01:47)
  2. Do you think your method of team inclusion can be applied to safety management, to get staff to be an active part of hazard identification? (05:20)
  3. How can you encourage proactive positive recording of events when things have gone well rather than poorly? (06:54)
  4. The bowtie method is not really suited for thinking positively, it seems to be made for visualizing how not to make mistakes. Would you agree with that statement? (09:34)
  5. In the CBR event you gave an example of Max Verstappen and how his team did a great job, was able to not only beat the records but also be consistent at their performance. What if the team of Max did it equally fast, but they crashed due to an oversight or slip? (11:19)
  6. What would be your suggestion to approach training to achieve such a collaborative or recursive improvisational mindset in teams, such as Max Verstappen’s team? (12:47)

Culture & Incidents (16:59)

  1. How does one trigger the cultural change to allow people to open up? And, how do you change the mindset of an organization that has had years of command and control culture, and the punishing of safety errors? (17:02)
  2. Do you think the government, with stricter compliancy laws, could perhaps help such a company, go above and beyond what it would normally do? (19:55)
  3. What is the most important factor to get from reactive to proactive risk management? Is it leadership, the regulator? (23:00)
  4. Would you say your model of psychological safety is more useful for organizations that are higher up that hearts and minds safety ladder or is it also useful for the reactive organizations? (26:13)
  5. I work at a company that has never had any serious incidents. And when we have high potential incidents, the focus is more on: nothing happens, the case is closed, and then daily live continuous. Should I be worried? (28:01)

Measuring psychological safety (30:25)

  1. How can we measure teamwork? (30:36)
  2. What would you consider good leading indicators for psychological safety of an organization? (35:23)
  3. Are there any objective methods to measure psychological safety? (37:05)
  4. One thing you mentioned during the event, was that there was about 96% fewer incidents over the past 30 years or so. How has that been measured? (40:12)
  5. Why do we still waste time on barrier analysis? Would it not be time well spent if we focus more on aspects related to risk response, risk velocity and risk scenarios? (43:31)

Results (45:18)

  1. How do you move from the focus on short-term financial results to psychological safety? (45:29)
  2. How do you get your team to focus on the process instead of the outcomes? (47:32)
  3. Lets say we have an organization that takes after psychological safety and really do their best, but by focusing on the process and taking it to an extreme they start doing the opposite of what they intended, which is micro managing and killing autonomy of teams. What should they do? (52:01)
  4. Would varying and vast discrepancies in skill sets within a team have a huge impact in your idea of focusing on the process, rather than on the outcome? (53:58)

A final word of advice

  1. Is there anything else you would like to share with the audience? (56:43)
  1. Are there any plans to integrate the CGE Risk tools with Apple products?
    The desktop tools (BowTieXP, IncidentXP, AuditXP) are only available on Windows and there are no plans to port them to Apple products. However, even though not officially supported by CGE Risk, many clients and partners are using BowTieXP on their Mac(book) via Windows emulators. One that we have seen numerous times is Parallels ( BowTieServer is different, because the front-end runs in a web-browser. Therefore, logging in on a Mac gives the same experience as logging in on a Windows machine. The Audit app (connected to BowTieServer) is available on Android and iOS!
  2. Are the prices for small organizations brought to a monthly fee under the wing of Wolters Kluwer?
    No – our software subscriptions are for a duration of 12 months and charged anually.
  3. As everyone is well aware: GIGO (Garbage In -> Garbage Out). Incident Investigation results feed into your system, and Human Factors is a critical element in Risk Management. How do you ensure Human Error is adequately investigated?
    CGE Risk’s incident analysis tools focus on the barrier performance during incidents, near misses and other deviation occurences. Human Factors are part of any barrier system (directly or indirectly) and human performance (or error if you like) will be part of the causal path that is investigated. The software does not force consideration of human error, but the methodologies IncidentXP offers do consider it. Theoretical frameworks from Tripod Beta or BSCAT specifically point to human factors in incidents and guide the user to investigating them.
  4. As the changes to the bowtie can be done easily, is it also audit proof on the applied changes?
    In BowTieXP (desktop tool) there is functionality to capture Revision Information and there is a sign-off flow. However, there are no bowtie changes saved into the file, so a solid audit trail is missing (dependant on user consistency). BowTieServer is full audit proof because every field level change is stored in the database (date/time/user/change) and can be consulted later.
  5. How about Electronic safety cases?
    We have considered building true Electronic Safety Case functionality in the past and some of our consulting partners have built prototypes for it. Ultimately there was no business case and the idea has not reached our roadmap. Of course, this decision can always be reconsidered.
  6. Have you got any products for Safety Critical Task Analysis/Human Error Analysis?
    CGE Risk’s incident analysis tools focus on the barrier performance during incidents, near misses and other deviation occurences. Human Factors are part of any barrier system (directly or indirectly) and human performance (or error if you like) will be part of the causal path that is investigated. The software does not force consideration of human error, but the methodologies IncidentXP offers do consider it. Theoretical frameworks from Tripod Beta or BSCAT specifically point to human factors in incidents and guide the user to investigating them.
  7. How can CGE Risk keep their unique identity in this merger?
    The Enablon product stack has clearly identified ORM and CGE Risk as strong brands. The key difference will be the integrations and extensions that come from being part of one platform.
  8. How do you link the bowtie to live data? Is it automated?
    Barrier Visualization comes with a robust set of APIs to create automated data linking to both barrier categories and bowtie elements.
  9. How flexible is the software products for customization to align with company processes?
    All CGE Risk products (BowTieXP, AuditXP, IncidentXP, BowTieServer) allow for customization of user language, terminologies, taxonomies, risk matrices etc.
  10. Will CGE Risk be integrated into the Enablon Platform?
    All products in the Enablon family are coming together under a single platform.
  11. Is the software available as a cloud solution?
  12. Is there any limitation related to size of the companies?
    No – we work with large global companies as well as Small and Medium Businesses.
  13. Justin, it has been our experience that acquisitions by large companies tend to take highly functional software and cripple individual user access to it by moving the software exclusively into an enterprise platform. Do you have a plan to avoid that?
    Absolutely! We are working to simplify the packaging and pricing models, so it’s possible to buy bundles for simplicity but also individual items a la carte.
  14. One of the great strengths of CGE Risk has been their great agility in evolving software on the basis of clients needs, will this continue under WK?
    The CGE Risk team are staying in place. This means continuity for clients and the products. Enablon is a firm follower of agile practices, and supports proximity to the client and partner network.
  15. Please elaborate on Barrier management with real time data from company’s live dashboard!
    The Barrier Management solution allows to create a hierarchy of barrier categories, barriers and barrier elements. On the element level, multiple data points can be connected to feed the model with (real time) operational data. Examples are; maintenance management data (from SAP or Maximo), sensor data (from OsiSoft Pi), competence data (from HR system). Based on the configured threshold’s this data aggregates to a high level asset integrity dashboard, or to a dynamic bowtie view. Ultimately, this solution shows you the ‘as is’ status of your asset from a safety perspective.
  16. Seamless integration concept is GREAT idea and I believe as SMEs grow they would adopt but how would you CONVINCE a large multi-national to change existing corporate platforms at significant cost and disruption?
    Many large organisations are already speaking to us about becoming their one stop shop for EHS, ORM and Risk. We are able to create competitive cloud offerings, reduce IT overhead and spend and bring in operational efficiencies at a nunmber of levels, including business processes.
  17. The demo got me excited! In what time frame are CGE Risk’s product’s integrated into the larger platform?
    Some CGE products have already been integrated into the platform. These integrations are part of Enablon version 9, which has been released end of November. The first integration is between BowTieXP and the Risk Management module. In short, from Enablon Risk Management bowties can be linked or created in BowTieXP. The bowties will then be available to Enablon users in the platform! The second integration is aimed at Barrier Management in Operational Risk Management. This integration allows to visualize fully dynamic bowties in the Enablon platform. Dynamic here means that the barrier health status is displayed ‘as is’ based on various data sources, such as maintenance data, competence data, process sensor data and any other source that can be mapped to barriers.
  18. We have seen the integrations with BowTieXP, but what will happen to AuditXP, IncidentXP and BowTieServer?
    Product Management and Engineering teams are working hard to assess where integrating AuditXP and IncidentXP adds value for users. Please keep an eye on our communication channels, where we will communicate next steps for these products.
  19. We like working together with CGE Risk because of their open and helping culture. Do you think they will be able to keep that within WK?
    The CGE Risk team are staying in place. This means continuity for clients and the products. Enablon is a firm follower of agile practices, and supports proximity to the client and partner network.
  20. What additional advantages are there in using Enablon vs BowTieServer?
    Through the Enablon platform it is possible to create multiple valuable integrations, and to truly operationalise bowties. By linking them with daily operational practices, we are elevating bowties to the whole company.
  21. What are the focus markets where the Enablon offering will be focusing on the coming 2 years?
    Enablon serves customers operating in any industries, mainly asset intensive like oil & gas, chemicals, mining, manufacturing, Life sciences, food & beverage, construction, high-tech, transportation, automotive and aerospace. Our target markets are North America, EMEA, APAC.
  22. When can we see CGE Risk’s products integrated into the larger platform?
    Some CGE Risk products have already been integrated into the platform. These integrations are part of Enablon version 9, which has been released end of November. The first integration is between BowTieXP and the Risk Management module. In short, from Enablon Risk Management bowties can be linked or created in BowTieXP. The bowties will then be available to Enablon users in the platform! The second integration is aimed at Barrier Management in Operational Risk Management. This integration allows to visualize fully dynamic bowties in the Enablon platform. Dynamic here means that the barrier health status is displayed ‘as is’ based on various data sources, such as maintenance data, competence data, process sensor data and any other source that can be mapped to barriers.
  1. Do you think the acquisition of CGE Risk is a big differentiator for Enablon?
    The addition of the bowtie risk modelling expertise to the existing Enablon risk management software is a significant positive. Also there is an advantage in adding the thousands of risk management professionals who use BowTieXP. Up to the Enablon team to turn this into a big differentiator.
  2. How about the risks of RTRA such as cybercrime?
    Cyber-security is another important topic but outside our research on industrial risk management. Well-designed enterprise software embeds multiple layers of protection (from mobile app to browser to server to data center) into the architecture to prevent malicious activity.
  3. How can we help the healthcare to improve the patient safety?
    I’m afraid this is outside the scope of what I presented on.
  4. How do you achieve Bill Gates status in an organization where we have a very large cosmopolitan workforce?
    We are seeing firms appoint Chief Digital Officers with wide-ranging external experience, sometimes from recognized tech brands like Accenture, Deloitte or Microsoft. They are then given an internal communications platform to lead innovation efforts and harness the creative power of the employees. This is often accompanied by setting up a programme management office and a centre of excellence.
  5. How do you see the potential dependence on technology? will be need more barriers dedicated to “technology integrity”?
    Workers, supervisors and managers are still the most important part of the safety system. Technology can eliminate some of the risks (drones for confined space) or mitigate risks by making it easier to gather more information faster (sensors on equipment that could fail and cause a loss of containment). In terms of technology integrity the issues are usually addressed at the design stage. For instance ATEX compliant devices or ensuring redundancy in electronic communications infrastructure. It is an interesting point to consider how strong the integrity framework is for technology if it becomes intrinsic to barrier management.
  6. Is there still a non digital scenario that companies can go into?
    In reality many companies still operate with minimal use of digital technology for industrial risk management. So the question is really whether this is the best approach. There are no volumes of research to indicate that you can improve safety performance and risk management with better quality data which is more accurate and provided in a more timely manner. So there is a scenario for not using digital but it is inferior.
  7. There are Bowtie, Fish Bone and Fault Tree risk assessment tools. How do you think the company or industry should approach to select any of these tools?
    These are all problem solving tools that can be used at one firm, even to assess the risks of the same scenario. The goal is to get better insight into risks and to put stronger controls in place. So using a multitude of approaches (time permitting) could lead to the best outcome.
  8. What are your thoughts on the joining/integration of CGE Risk, E-Vision and Enablon?
    See response above.
  9. What influence does Covid have on your risk analyzes?
    We have been impressed by the ability of the health and safety profession to apply existing techniques to manage COVID-19 risks. For instance, conducting an incident investigation when there has been a cluster of infected workers and performing root cause analysis. Also using medical surveillance approaches and industrial hygiene to reduce workplace risk. The pandemic has also accelerated a shift to digital and real-time as it is clear that multi-day risk analysis is too slow to contain an outbreak.
  10. What skills should teams build to catch the future’s train in terms of digital technologies in the field of Risk Management and process safety?
    Teams need to improve their IT project management skill set – per my point about being like Bill Gates. You need people who understand the end-to-end process from requirements definition to vendor selection to end user engagement, user acceptance testing and system sustainment.
  11. Where do you see risk management in 10 years?
    Better management of interdependent risks across workers and equipment through the use of digitized real-time risk management systems — for the most advanced firms in high hazard industries. Many other firms will be moving in this direction but in a slow evolution.


During this upcoming virtual event ‘Connected by risk’, the following speakers shared their current take on barrier based risk management and our joint risk connection.



Donatello Piras

Virtual Event Chairman

Donatello Piras (1976) is chairman, presenter and debate leader with years of national and international experience.

He works as a television presenter for RTL-Z where he presents the Talkshow – Z in Business – and takes care of the weekly TV column in opinion show – Dunk.

Donatello can be found on a stage almost every day. His energetic performances are characterized by professionalism, enthusiasm, and asperity.


SBM Offshore

Daniel Rowe

Group Operational Excellence Manager at SBM Offshore

Our journey to more effective operational risk management for process safety

The opportunities that digitalization gives companies in providing real-time information to operators for decision making is something we looking into. At SBM Offshore, we have a vision of applying best practice guidance from CCPS and the Energy Institute in the development of barrier systems in bow ties and applying indicators to reflect barrier condition offshore.

Jop Groeneweg

Delft University of Technology

Jop Groeneweg

Prof. dr., Prof. of ‘Safety Assurance in Healthcare’ at Delft University of Technology

Psychological safety, The next target in risk management?

Improving organisational learning is one of the main challenges facing leaders and HSE professionals. One of the factors determining success factors is the level of psychological safety in a team.

In this presentation some practical tools to get insight how to measure and stimulate psychological safety in your organisation..


Wolters Kluwer – Enablon

Justin Naik

Product Management Director at eVision Industry Software

Background & Integrations – Wolters Kluwer’s acquisition of CGE Risk Management Solutions

CGE is now part of Wolters Kluwer’s Environmental, Health & Safety and Operational Risk Management (EHS/ORM) software group, which also includes Enablon and eVision.The combined offerings will enable customers to improve their EHS, ORM, and risk performance and to conduct more responsible, productive, and safe operations.



David Metcalfe

CEO and Co-Founder of Verdantix

Next generation industrial/operational risk management 

As the Industry 4.0 agenda gains pace, a confluence of technology trends are opening up the possibility for real-time, integrated risk management to replace static and siloed risk management. This talk will focus on the technology making this possible and the benefits for organizations in moving on a step-by-step basis towards this new model, as well as the impact of COVID-19 on approaches to risk management.

We launched a new webinar series! Get ready to learn how to ‘Connect the dots‘ in advanced barrier management, utilizing the bowtie method.

Webinars take place every Wednesday. There will be two alternating sessions covering the same part, but on different timezones (the first week at 9AM CEST and the other week at 4PM CEST) as we want to make sure all of you have the opportunity to join the session.

Register now!

Connect the dots – webinar series

Register your interest