Diversity in management
system assessments
describes how ExxonMobil developed a diverse assessment structure for its management system that led to value-added benefits
ExxonMobil has just celebrated 125 years in business and is one of the largest non-state owned oil companies in the world, with sales revenues approaching US$400bn. It is committed to safely and reliably producing oil, natural gas and hydrocarbon products in various locations around the world in a way that maximizes resource and asset value.
Major disasters in the energy industry in recent years have highlighted the need to establish successful management systems. The Piper Alpha 20th anniversary this year has been yet another reminder of major disaster because oil or gas escapes containment; Buncefield is a more recent example. With such events in mind, the operations integrity management system (OIMS) devised by ExxonMobil and introduced to all operating units in 1991 was designed to maintain integrity. This translates to total containment at all steps from first drilling a well, through producing the crude oil or gas, subsequent refining, through various transportation processes, to when you fill up at the service station.
The system
The ExxonMobil business model has 16 standards of business conduct that all 81,000 employees are expected to follow, such as ethical behavior, health, safety and environment. These are applied through management systems owned by line or business managers, rather than a safety, health and environment manager or a quality director. Divisional presidents are held to account by the executive committee for systems effectiveness as measured through assessment, as well as the performance results the systems deliver.
Management system standards are only truly effective when all elements of the continuous improvement cycle are in place. In our view, completion of the cycle is achieved through effective assessment and follow-up of actions identified.
With this in mind, OIMS has an assessment protocol for each of the systems into which it is subdivided: for example, an assessable unit, such as a refinery, will have 21 systems whereas a small lube oil blending plant will have ten. Internal assessments are conducted annually within the assessable unit by trained personnel. External assessments happen every three to five years, led by a manager at peer level or above still within the company. The whole team will come from another unit, usually from another country, and will be equally split between line managers and specialists, such as environmental advisors and safety engineers.
The benefits of this approach include the demonstration of total organizational commitment to OIMS, active involvement by a range of knowledgeable managers and the two-way sharing of best practices between the unit and the external participants.
Compliance to other standards
Approaches to assurance have been evolving internationally, especially since the 1987 ISO 9000 series launch. When ISO 9001, -2 and -3 were first issued, they were primarily intended for a contract between two parties. The explosion in third-party certification was unexpected and its value is often questioned; for example, management can focus on maintaining the certificate rather than improving the system.
The wording on conformity assessment in ISO 14001, reproduced in OHSAS 18001, offers four approaches:
- self-declaration
- second-party confirmation
- self-declaration with third-party confirmation
- third-party certification
In our case, Lloyds Register Quality Assurance (LRQA) checks that OIMS is effectively deployed across nearly 200 assessable units globally. Our experience with the success of this approach leads us to question very carefully why most emphasis today is on the fourth option when attestation represents a cost-effective approach to the third.
In order to recognize legitimate assurance requests, but to avoid unnecessary external activity, we use a three-yearly attestation cycle. LRQA compares OIMS with the requirements of ISO 14001/OHSAS 18001 and visit a sample of sites as well as various global business head offices, including corporate offices.
The results
The proof of any method is in the results obtained. For ExxonMobil, we have seen continuing improvements in our health, safety and environmental performance since OIMS was introduced, to levels equal to or better than our industry peers. Two examples of continuing downward trends to industry leading levels are our personal injury rates and our spills to water.
Most of us can rely on self-certification when we are testing our fitness for a given task. We would be foolish to attempt to climb a mountain or run a marathon without taking adequate checks. However, we would only employ experts to assess us where we felt it prudent. Imagine how we would feel if the government insisted every marathon runner or mountain climber should be assessed at their own cost by an independent doctor.
Variability within accredited third-party certification of ISO 9001 has attracted global criticism. The assessment profession is right to focus on improving competence but my additional thought for you is promotion of a diverse assessment framework, as used by ExxonMobil. Attestation provides challenging opportunities for the very best of you.
About the author
Dr John Symonds is an environmental advisor in the ExxonMobil Global Downstream and Chemicals organization based in Leatherhead, UK, where he is also UK and Ireland SHE team leader. He is involved in BSI standardization activity in safety, health and environment and sustainability areas and is also an International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Expert at the ISO 26000 social responsibility work group. He is a member of the LRQA general technical committee set up under ISO 17021 and the IAF end-user advisory committee.
 |
 Have an issue to raise? A question to ask? Give us your opinions now in the Online Forums. |
