Issuu

Industry Report

2025 Data Report

Contents Introduction

03 Introduction 04-05 Report Highlights 06 Foreword from Craig Wiggins Industry Impact & Awareness 07-09 Industry Context 10-14 Enhancing PSIP with Observation Data Hazard & LSR Categorisation 15-16 2024 vs 2025 Overview 17 Hazard Categorisation 18 Life-Saving Rule Categorisation 19-20 Bumi Armada UK Case Study Key Safety Themes 21 Overall Interpretation 22 Valve Isolation Management 23 Door Safety Management 24 Barrier Management 25 Lighting Safety Concerns 26 Safe Deck Operations 27 Unsafe Cable Trays 28 Corrosion Control Measures 29 Deluge System Testing 30-31 Operational Discipline as a Common Thread Industry Alignment 32-33 Themes, Learnings and Expectations

Enhanced by

BOOST

Introduction

The 2025 SCiS Industry Report provides an evidence‑based view of how the UKCS workforce is observing, reporting, and acting on safety‑critical conditions in the field. Drawing on more than a year of detailed observation data, operator benchmarking, trend analysis and topic deep dives, the report highlights where progress is being made, where risks are increasing, and what these shifts mean for major accident hazard (MAH) exposure across the basin.

This year’s report expands significantly on previous editions. It incorporates a fuller statistical overview of 2025 observation data including:

Comparisons with 2024,

A refreshed Hazard & Life‑Saving Rule categorisation analysis,

Deeper thematic insights powered by large language machine learning models,

New content on the emerging role of Process Safety Fundamentals (PSFs),

Barrier‑related observations,

Case studies demonstrating tangible improvements achieved through systematic upskilling and leadership engagement.

The structure of the report reflects an intention to move beyond describing what is happening in the field to understanding why these patterns matter for process safety leadership. Each section is designed to support duty holders, senior leaders and supervisors in translating insights into meaningful action:

Industry overview and baseline statistics set the context for observation trends across 2025.

Hazard and LSR categorisation illustrates how the workforce is interacting with the core elements that prevent major accidents, showing the shifts in exposure and vigilance across companies.

Key Safety Themes Key Safety Themes provide a deeper examination of the highest-risk conditions and behaviours. Inclusive of the themes that have changed the most since 2024, field trends are clearly linked to leadership through:

The HSE Process Safety Leadership Findings

The Process Safety Leadership Principles

The SCiS High Value Learnings and PSIP Guidance

Including cultural maturity,

Especially visible leadership

Highlighting how workforce

frontline engagement,

commitment, active

observations are raising

verification of critical controls,

monitoring of barrier health,

awareness and surfacing weak

questioning/

signals to inform improvement

and learning from work

and fostering a

challenging culture.

planning.

The analysis throughout this report reinforces a clear message:

The strength of process safety leadership can be directly seen in the quality and depth of observations coming from the workforce. Where leadership teams demonstrate curiosity, follow-through and visible commitment to barrier integrity, the data shows both higher-quality observations and earlier identification of deteriorating conditions. Conversely, where leaders struggle to sustain engagement or provide clarity around MAH expectations, the data highlights gaps, often in the same areas identified by the HSE in its recent inspection findings.

By presenting these insights in a structured and transparent way, this report aims to support industry wide improvement, enable more targeted risk based PSIP actions, and help ensure that the lessons learned from past major accidents continue to translate into safer operations across the UKCS.

Enhanced

BOOST

Report Highlights The 2025 observation data provides a clear view of how organisations are detecting, understanding, and acting on Major Accident Hazard (MAH) signals. The analysis shows a maturing process safety mindset across the workforce, improved visibility of weak signals, and stronger alignment with HSE Process Safety Leadership (PSL) expectations.

A More Mature and MAH‑Focused Reporting Culture 2025 data shows a markedly stronger and more balanced hazard-reporting profile. Reporting volumes increased across almost all MAH-relevant categories, reflecting:

Higher workforce engagement

Increased psychological safety and willingness to report issues early

Better frontline hazard recognition

Stronger leadership emphasis on reporting quality

Crucially, workforce attention has shifted toward higher-consequence hazards, with notable increases in Human Factors, Mechanical issues, Safety Systems, and MAH hazards.This indicates a shift away from low-level personal safety reporting toward conditions that influence barrier health and MAH exposure.

Clear Evidence of MAH Weak Signals and Barrier Degradation Trends BOOST ’s AI‑driven analysis surfaces patterns that traditional systems miss, providing clarity on:

Unsafe

isolations

Emergency

lighting deficiencies

SIMOPS communication gaps

Barrier and equipment degradation

Corrosion and

structural support deterioration

These signals align directly with recent HSE Process Safety Leadership Inspection findings and provide early warning of weakening barriers before they escalate.

Enhanced by

BOOST

Report Highlights

Leadership Assurance Aligned to HSE PSL Expectations The data indicates that leadership teams are increasingly able to demonstrate the behaviours expected by the HSE, including:

Increased use of leading indicators rather than reliance on lagging metrics such as LOPC/TRIR

Improved workforce engagement through close-the-loop performance

Active engagement and challenge using MAH-linked insights

More visible and informed focus on MAH

This supports stronger PSL reviews and provides clearer evidence of leadership focus on MAH controls.

Sharper PSIP Input, Prioritisation, and Action Planning The findings demonstrate improved input into Process Safety Improvement Plans (PSIPs), including:

More risk-based MAH inputs (themes, hotspots, trends)

Clearer distinction between tactical and strategic intervention needs

Identification of recurring issues despite previous actions

Visibility of “hot spots” and persistent degradation patterns

More measurable outcomes and leading-indicator KPIs

This enables higher-clarity, higher-confidence action planning grounded in operational risk.

Overall Summary 2025’s findings provide a data-driven view of MAH exposure and barrier health across organisations, supporting stronger leadership oversight and a more resilient process safety culture.

Insights are derived from structured analysis of workforce observation data, supported by AI-enabled analysis undertaken using BOOST. Clear alignment with HSE Process Safety Leadership Principles A stronger, more mature reporting culture

Better alignment to MAH and safety-critical controls Earlier identification of barrier degradation Improved visibility of weak signals

Enhanced by

BOOST

Foreword from Craig Wiggins I am really pleased to publish the 2025 E-Obs BOOST Data Report in partnership with Empirisys. This report highlights the continued use of E-Obs BOOST across our membership and shares some of the key themes, trends and challenges emerging from workforce observations being raised. Step Change in Safety’s mission is to prevent incidents and injuries across the energy industry. Delivering on that means focusing on the areas that drive lasting improvement, supported by active workforce involvement and a collective commitment to continuous improvement.

Craig Wiggins C

E-Obs BOOST plays an important role in this by helping make workforce observations clearer and more meaningful for leadership, enabling better decision-making and supporting a more proactive safety culture. It also supports greater consistency in how hazards, risks and behaviours are recognised and understood, while making a valuable contribution to our standardisation and sharing and learning priorities. Just as importantly, E-Obs helps strengthen workforce involvement at the frontline by empowering people to identify hazards, raise concerns, and take action to address unsafe conditions and behaviours. Through the use of BOOST’s artificial intelligence capability, we have moved into a different place in how we understand and use workforce observations. By making analysis more powerful and intelligent, it is helping shift our conversation from lagging indicators to leading insight. This gives us a stronger ability to identify patterns, surface weak signals, and share meaningful trends and challenges back with industry - while helping organisations using BOOST improve the quality and consistency of the observations being entered. Encouragingly, the report shows positive progress in workforce participation, observation quality, and visibility of Major Accident Hazard-related issues. At the same time, it also reinforces some familiar challenges – from hazard identification and dynamic risk assessment, to increasing risk tolerance, leadership focus, and ensuring safety expectations remain practical, clear and easy to apply.

My request to E-Obs BOOST users is simple: review this report and ask the question, “What does this mean for our operation?” Then use those insights to help shape your HSE and Process Improvement Plans going forward. Thanks to everyone who continues to play their part by contributing observations, challenging unsafe conditions, and supporting learning across our industry. I look forward to seeing E-Obs BOOST continue to support safer outcomes throughout 2026 and beyond.

Enhanced by

BOOST

Industry Context

“BOOST conver ts workforce obser vations into leadership ‑ grade evidence against the PSL Principles, surfacing the same systemic weaknesses the HSE repor ted, only earlier.”

What the HSE reported, and what the data shows The HSE PSL inspection programme (2022–2024) identified persistent gaps across UKCS operators, including: Barrier health assurance

Audit and assurance quality

Workforce engagement

Use of meaningful leading indicators

Visible MAH leadership

BOOST’s 2024/2025 trends (your themes) show the same weak signals in real time:

Barrier Degradation

Isolation/Permit Weaknesses

Engagement Signals

physical barricading, doors, lighting, cable trays, corrosion

valve line-up, verification, handovers

volumes, jobs stopped, MAH observations, close‑the‑loop feedback

Why it matters: The alignment between regulatory findings and workforce observation data provides earlier visibility of deterioration (or improvement) in barrier performance and MAH control.

Enhanced by

BOOST

Industry Context

This supports the shift emphasised by the HSE: moving from reliance on lagging metrics

toward actionable, MAH-linked leading indicators. The UKCS Principles of Process Safety Leadership (endorsed by OEUK/Step Change/HSE) emphasise visible leadership, workforce engagement, monitoring using leading and lagging indicators, robust audit/assurance of MAH barriers, and shared learning. SCiS Process Safety Improvement Plan The observation data demonstrates how these principles are being reflected in practice:

PSL Principle

What the observation data shows in

What the Principle Expects

(paraphrased)

practice

Visible, competent

Senior leaders must see MAH reality

Increased visibility of MAH-related

leadership on MAH

and act.

observations and weak signals; clearer identification of where leadership attention is strengthening or declining

Active engagement &

eaders maintain curiosity and

vigilance

heme-based insights (e.g. isolation, barriers,

challenge, not just compliance.

corrosion, lighting) and year-on-year comparisons supporting challenge and verification during site visits

orkforce engagement

Involve and listen; close feedback

loops.

bservation volumes, jobs stopped, and

feedback rates indicating psychological safety and close-the-loop behaviour.

Monitor using leading +

on’t over‑rely on LOPCs/TRIR; use

MAH observation rates, barrier impairment

MAH‑linked leading indicators.

trends, isolation quality signals, and

lagging indicators

emergency readiness indicators (e.g. lighting, egress)

Audit & assurance of

egular, robust verification of SCEs

Visibility of barrier health trends (physical

and barrier health.

barriers, cable trays, corrosion, doors) and

barriers

identification of areas requiring targeted verification or audit

Share performance and learn

ublish PS performance; collaborate

across industry.

ross-operator benchmarking, categorisation

using HVLs, LSRs, and PSFs, and the ability to share patterns across the industry

Board level involvement &

Board members actively oversee

MAH focused reporting and clearer

competence

MAH risks and use meaningful

weak‑signal trends now give senior leaders

insights to challenge, prioritise, and

stronger, evidence‑based visibility of risk,

assure barrier health.

enabling more informed oversight and

‑

decision‑making.

obust and regular

Systematic, risk‑based verification of

auditing of the safety

SCEs and MAH controls to detect

degradation, and lighting provide early

management system and

degradation early and confirm

indicators of weakening barriers, helping

MAH barriers

barrier effectiveness.

target audits and strengthen

atterns in isolations, corrosion, equipment

barrier‑assurance programmes.

Enhanced by

BOOST

Industry Context

Process Safety Fundamentals (PSF) Alignment HSE findings highlight the importance of explicitly focusing on MAH barriers and their condition, rather than solely on personal safety. The IOGP Process Safety Fundamentals provide a consistent framework for this, including:

Sustain Barriers

Maintain Safe Isolation

Recognise Change

Walk the Line

Watch for Weak Signals

Analysis of observation data aligned to these themes supports leaders in: Tracking improvement in behaviours over time (e.g. increased MAH observations, improved feedback rates) Identifying recurring issues (e.g. barrier degradation, isolation weaknesses)

Verifying whether PSFs are being applied in practice

Insights are derived from structured analysis of workforce observation data, supported by AI-enabled analysis using BOOST.

Enhanced by

BOOST

Enhancing PSIP with Observation Data HSE expects leadership teams to translate findings into risk-based action plans (PSIPs) and to review effectiveness. The Step Change in Safety PSIP is a structured, leadership-sponsored cycle with measurable outcomes. Observation data provides a consistent, evidence-based input across this cycle, supporting more informed identification, prioritisation, and review of improvements. Applying Observation Data Across the PSIP Cycle: PSIP Inputs (Step 3): BOOST supplies MAH‑relevant, risk‑based inputs (themes, hotspots, trends).

Tactical vs Strategic (Step 4): BOOST shows when training/ toolbox talks aren’t enough and a design/ maintenance programme is needed.

Outcomes & Review (Steps 5 & 8): BOOST quantifies whether targeted actions reduce weak signals and where issues recur, giving leaders defensible PSL assurance. The Step Change in Safety Process Safety Improvement Plan (PSIP) guidance document provides an 8-step structure for identifying, prioritising, and embedding improvements across high-hazard organisations. Observation data strengthens each stage by providing: Real-time visibility of MAH-related conditions and behaviours Leading indicators linked to barrier health and process safety

Structured insight into recurring patterns and emerging risks

This supports a shift from opinion-based inputs to data-driven prioritisation.

Enhanced by

BOOST

Enhancing PSIP with Observation Data Observation data provides a consistent, evidence-based input to the PSIP process. When integrated into improvement planning, it supports stronger decision-making, clearer prioritisation of actions, and greater visibility of process safety risks. The following areas highlight how observation data strengthens PSIP effectiveness.

Leadership & Accountability A transparent view of MAH-related behaviours and conditions, including barrier failures, isolation weaknesses, and corrosion deterioration, provides measurable evidence to support leadership focus on areas of increasing risk. Integration of observation data further aligns with PSL expectations, including maintaining barriers, and monitoring weak signals.

Stakeholder Engagement Observation data provides a common language across operations, maintenance, HSE, and leadership through consistent categorisation (hazards, LSRs, key safety themes) gives visibility to workforce concerns and emerging weak signals, while allowing engagement through feedback loops and follow-up activities.

Gather Inputs to PSIP Using a Risk‑Based Approach MAH-relevant observation patterns, barrier degradation trends, and other weak signals can be linked to HSE PSL findings; and workforce concerns are categorised against LSRs, Hazards, and IOGP Hardware Barriers.

T actical & Strategic Balance The ability to distinguish between high-frequency weak signals and higher-consequence MAH precursors can enable the identification of repeating issues, indicating the need for strategic intervention rather than local fixes.

Enhanced by

BOOST

Enhancing PSIP with Observation Data Measurable Outcomes & Continuous Improvement Leadership is enabled to:

Measure outcomes (e.g. closure rates, recurrence, leading indicator trends)

Track MAH-linked metrics (e.g. isolation, degraded supports, emergency systems)

Compare year-on-year performance

Integration & Performance Alignment Support a consistent view of MAH-related risk, across functions, with alignment in: Safety leadership activities

Control of work systems

Integrity management priorities

SCiS HVLs, LSRs, and PSF frameworks

Detailed Action Planning Identify where issues are concentrated, with observations enabling the understanding of which actions are most effective; training, re-design, maintenance, supervision, etc.

Alignment with known HSE inspection themes, enhances planning for: Isolation discipline

Barrier verification

Emergency

Systems

Structural Integrity

SIMOPS Communication

R eview PSIP Effectiveness Evidence-based review, in replace of reliance on periodic or subjective assessment, allows continuous review

of improvement areas through: Measurement of changes in MAH-related reporting and behaviours

Visibility of recurring issues and re-emerging “themes”

Visibility of effectiveness of improvements implemented

Enhanced by

BOOST

Enhancing PSIP with Observation Data Capability Summary (PSIP Support)

BOOST Capability

How it Enhances PSIP

Why it Matters

Theme detection

Identifies systemic and emerging risks

Earlier visibility of weak signals

Hazard, LSR & barrier categorisation

Aligns observations with HVLs & PSL Principles

Improves integrity of inputs

MAH-relevance tagging

Distinguishes personal vs. process safety

Supports MAH-focused leadership

Trend analysis (year-onyear)

Shows improvement or deterioration

Enables targeted interventions

Feedback loops

Strengthens engagement & trust

Increases reporting quality

Real-time visibility

Provides immediate view of risk

Supports faster response to MAH deviations

Action tracking

Links observations to actions and outcomes

Enables measurable progress

A structured, data-led approach to PSIP supports earlier identification of risk, clearer prioritisation of actions, and more robust review of outcomes. Insights are derived from structured analysis of workforce observation data, supported by AI-enabled analysis using BOOST.

Enhanced by

BOOST

Enhancing PSIP with Observation Data

Over the past year, improvements in observation quality have been supported by the introduction of BOOST Smart Suggestions within E-Obs and through wider trials across participating operators. Rather than automating the reporting process, Smart Suggestions was designed to support the workforce at the point of reporting by prompting users with relevant hazards, Life-Saving Rules and possible follow-up actions based on the description entered. This has helped improve the consistency and quality of submissions, particularly where observations may previously have been entered using different terminology, levels of detail, or category selections. In practice, this means that issues described in different ways by different members of the workforce can still be interpreted more consistently, giving supervisors and leaders a clearer view of what is actually happening in the field. The impact is visible not only in higher categorisation rates, but also in the broader maturity of the data across 2025. Hazard and Life-Saving Rule identification has improved, the use of non-specific classifications has reduced, and a greater proportion of observations now provide meaningful context for analysis. This creates stronger data for frontline learning and better intelligence for leadership teams seeking to understand recurring risks, weak signals and emerging safety themes. Importantly, this improvement is not just about better data entry. It reflects a wider process of workforce upskilling and empowerment. Repeated contextual prompts help reinforce understanding over time, building confidence in recognising hazards and Life-Saving Rules while improving the quality of observation reporting. In parallel, BOOST’s theme analysis helps leaders see beyond the wording or categories used in individual reports, surfacing consistent patterns across large volumes of workforce data. Together, these developments have made it easier for operators and Tier 1 suppliers to use observation data more effectively: not simply as a record of activity, but as a source of risk-based insight that aligns with PSIP improvement planning and provides a practical complement to what the HSE is seeing across the industry.

Enhanced by

BOOST

2024 vs 2025 Overview The dashboards show a clear shift between 2024 and 2025 across all observation metrics. The year‑on‑year patterns provide insight into how workforce engagement, leadership practices, and MAH awareness have evolved. 2025 demonstrates higher reporting volumes, stronger engagement, and improved feedback, indicating a more mature reporting culture and increased focus on process safety. Below is a structured comparison of the key changes and what they indicate operationally and culturally. Total Observations

Jobs Stopped

32,850 a ea 01 Jan - 31 Dec

# of Conversations

5,473 a ea 01 Jan - 31 Dec

MAH Observations

22,672 a ea 01 Jan - 31 Dec

31%

829

a ea 01 Jan - 31 Dec

164%

69%

Key Takeaways The challenge across the basin is to standardise, share, learn, and continuously improve HSE performance, and through observations, the workforce has been doing exactly that. Historically, there has been a perception that observations are simply a numbers game. Feedback from the workforce has consistently highlighted that they often do not see what happens to their observations, with limited feedback and, in some cases, little visible action taken. This has been a long-standing challenge, driven largely by the volume of data and the time required to interpret it meaningfully and act on it. Through E-Obs BOOST, we are now addressing this challenge head-on. mportantly, the workforce has embraced this change and are clearly playing their part. Between 2024 and 2025, we have seen I

e aey

cord

d S

e sa

Conv

165%

tion

indicating a more open culture and greater willingness to discuss concerns on site.

cord

d Job

31%

Stopp

demonstrating stronger workforce engagement and con dence to intervene. fi

e have also seen a related observations, which is a strong indicator of improved awareness and re ects the collective efforts across industry. Additionally, there has been a captured. This should be viewed positively, as it re ects a better understanding of risk and a greater willingness to call out unsafe acts conditions. W

69% increase in Major Accident Hazard (MAH) fl

15% increase

in unsafe observations

Crucially, feedback from the workforce has told us that there is a lack of feedback , and it is encouraging to see this picture changing. The data shows “

”

ee a k

Provid

46%

se a s ee a k

tion

63%

With No

This demonstrates that the feedback loop is strengthening, which will further engage the workforce, drive participation, and surface risks early so that action can be taken. Through sharing and learning sessions via Step Change in Safety, alongside individual site engagements, we challenged both the workforce and leaders to lay our art. The response has been clear the industry has stepped up to that challenge. P

Enhanced y b

BOOST

2024 vs 2025 Overview We must maintain this momentum. We can never say we can predict the next incident or when it will occur, but collectively we can reduce the likelihood of incidents, by surfacing weak signals and recurring themes, and by proactively implementing improvements. This requires all of us to continue to play out part, to make the energy industry safer by: Preventing incidents and harm through strong leadership

Workforce involvement

Shared learning across companies

Raising safety standards

Improving behaviours

Strengthening collaboration

Enhanced by

BOOST

Hazard Categorisation

2024 vs 2025 Comparison As observation activity continues to increase, it is important to understand not only the volume of observations being reported, but also the types of hazards being identified. Changes in hazard categorisation can provide insight into where attention is being focused and how workforce awareness is evolving. The comparison below highlights the year-on-year change across hazard categories reported.

2024 to 2025 Hazard Percentage Change -25% N/A

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

10%

-22.3%

Other Hazard

0.0%

Radiation

+0.1%

Sound

+0.1%

Pressure

+0.2%

Biological

+0.3%

Temperature

+0.3%

Major Accident Hazard

+0.4%

Electrical

+0.4%

Environment

+0.9%

Gravity

+1.3%

Safety Systems

+1.4%

Chemical

+1.7% +2.7%

Motion

+5.6%

Mechanical

+7.0%

Human Factors

Key Takeaway

While the proportion of hazards classified as N/A has reduced significantly from 2024 - 2025, this has largely been redistributed into a small number of key categories, most notably Human Factors (+7.0%), alongside increases in Mechanical (+5.6%), Motion (+2.7%). The shift into Human Factors is particularly material and warrants deeper investigation to understand which specific drivers (e.g. behavioural, leadership, procedural adherence) are contributing to this rise. The redistribution into mechanical and motion-related hazards also reinforces the need to focus on how work is executed in practice, not just the hazard type itself.

Other Change: -22.3%

Human Factors Change: +7.0%

Mechanical Change: +5.6%

Motion Change: +2.7%

Enhanced by

BOOST

LSR Categorisation

2024 vs 2025 Comparison Reviewing changes in LSR categorisation provides additional insight into how observations are being classified and where workforce attention is being focused. As reporting volumes increase and categorisation becomes more consistent, trends within specific LSR categories can help organisations better understand exposure to critical risk activities and support more targeted improvement efforts.

2024 to 2025 LSR Percentage Change -25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

10%

-14.4%

N/A

-0.4%

Confined Space Driving

+0.2%

Hot Work

+0.3%

Working at Height

+0.6%

Other LSR

+1.3%

Energy Isolations

+1.4%

Safe Mechanical Lifting

+2.3%

Bypassing Safety Controls

+2.6%

Line of Fire

+2.9%

Work Authorisation

+3.1%

Key Takeaway A similar pattern is evident across LSRs, where the reduction in N/A has been redistributed primarily into Work Authorisation (+3.1%), Line of Fire (+2.9%), Bypassing Safety Controls (+2.6%), and Safe Mechanical Lifting (+2.3%). This indicates improved classification clarity, but also highlights concentration in a small number of critical control areas.

The clustering of these increases suggests a need to examine how controls are being applied and maintained in operational settings, particularly around authorisation, isolation, and exposure to line-of-fire risks.

Other

Work Authorisation

Line of Fire

Bypassing Safety Controls

Change: -14.4%

Change: +3.1%

Change: +2.9%

Change: +2.6%

Enhanced by

BOOST

Bumi Armada UK

Standout Performer In Observation Quality Improving reporting quality and workforce awareness through better observation data. Bumi Armada UK, operator of the Armada Kraken FPSO in the UK North Sea, has been a long-standing user of Step Change in Safety’s E-Obs observation programme, supporting safe and efficient offshore operations. Following the findings of the 2024 E-Obs Industry Report, which highlighted industry challenges around hazard and Life-Saving Rule identification within observations, Bumi Armada chose to work with Empirisys to introduce the BOOST module for E-Obs. BOOST, including the Smart Suggestions feature, was adopted to support the workforce at the point of reporting while providing leadership teams with clearer insight from observation data. The results have positioned Bumi Armada as one of the standout performers in the E-Obs community for improving observation quality and workforce awareness.

What Smart Suggestions provides

Hazard Prompts

Life-Saving Rule Prompts

Better

Observations

50%

90%+

Improvement in Hazard and Life-Saving Rule Categorisation.

Supporting the workforce at the point of reporting, Smart Suggestions provides contextual prompts as an observation is submitted, suggesting relevant hazards, Life‑Saving Rules and potential follow‑up actions based on the description entered. The aim is not to automate reporting, but to help workers identify risks more clearly and consistently at the moment an observation is recorded. Repeated prompts in context also help reinforce understanding and build confidence in recognising hazards and Life‑Saving Rules.

Industry Perspective

"By adding BOOST to the E‑Obs platform, we are making it easier for our workforce to engage with safety reporting…" Dr Helen Drewery HSE Manager, Bumi Armada UK

Enhanced by

BOOST

Bumi Armada UK

Standout Performer In Observation Quality Evidence from an Industry Trial Alongside operator deployments, an industry‑level trial of Smart Suggestions explored how prompts influence reporting behaviour. In workforce groups where hazard and Life‑Saving Rule categorisation had previously been around 50% of submissions, the introduction of prompts increased correct categorisation to over 90%. To understand whether this reflected learning rather than system dependency, prompts were later removed for a period of testing. While categorisation levels reduced slightly, the majority of users continued to correctly identify hazards and Life‑Saving Rules, maintaining significantly higher reporting quality than before the trial. Across a six‑month period, the results indicated that prompts were helping to increase awareness and understanding across the workforce, rather than simply correcting observations automatically.

From Observation Text to Clearer Key Safety Themes Observation Text

Key Safety Themes

Hazard & Life-Saving Rules Categories

BOOST analyses the free‑text descriptions within observations to identify recurring patterns and generate Key Safety Themes across the dataset. These Key Safety Themes highlight areas of operational focus emerging from workforce reporting. For example, a theme may emerge around valve maintenance, bringing together observations describing similar activities or conditions across the asset.

Consistent hazard and Life‑Saving Rule categorisation then adds important context to these Key Safety Themes. It helps leadership teams understand what is driving the theme and what type of risk is sitting within it.

By combining Key Safety Themes generated from observation text with

Leadership Insight

structured hazard and Life‑Saving Rule categorisation, leadership teams gain a more complete view of the underlying risk profile. This supports risk‑based, evidence‑led decisions, helping leaders focus attention where it matters most.

A Standout Example for the E‑Obs Community Bumi Armada’s progress on Kraken demonstrates what is possible when strong workforce engagement is combined

with improved reporting quality and clearer insight from safety data.

As observation systems evolve, the ability to capture well‑structured, meaningful information will play an increasingly important role in enabling evidence‑driven safety improvement and risk‑based leadership action.

Enhanced by

BOOST

Key Safety Themes

Overall Interpretation

The observation data presents a clear and consistent pattern across the industry, highlighting both strengths and areas requiring targeted improvement. Several themes show a strong proportion of safe behaviours, indicating established good practices in key operational activities. However, there is also a noticeable concentration of unsafe observations across specific themes, suggesting underlying issues in workforce behaviours, control implementation, or procedural adherence.

2025 Theme Highlights

2024 Theme Highlights Theme Name

% Safe

% Unsafe

Theme Name

% Safe

% Unsafe

Safe Deck Operations

88%

12%

Barrier Management Assessment

45%

55%

Safety Compliance Assessment

65%

35%

Safety Toolbox Discussions

94%

Ring Floor Operations

97%

Valve Isolation Management

37%

63%

Door Safety Protocol

10%

90%

Gas Safety Awareness

36%

64%

Safe Scaffold Operations

57%

43%

Hose Safety Management

25%

75%

Deck Hazards

14%

86%

Facility Hygiene Management

25%

75%

Effective Task Briefing

95%

Pressure Testing Excellence

78%

22%

Permit Compliance Assessment

63%

37%

PPE Compliance

24%

76%

Waste Segregation Management

31%

69%

Safety Equipment Operations

85%

15%

Corrosion Control Measures

21%

79%

Lighting Safety Concerns

18%

82%

Unsafe Cable Trays

12%

88%

Rope Access Safety

25%

75%

The themes with the highest volume of observations, both safe and unsafe, are typically associated with critical frontline tasks such as safe operations, PPE compliance, equipment use, and general workplace organisation. High volumes in these areas demonstrate strong reporting engagement but also provide an early indicator of where operational risk may be most concentrated.

number of themes show a higher ratio of unsafe to safe observations. These include activities linked to hazard A controls, equipment handling, and human‑factor‑related tasks. The elevated unsafe proportion within these themes points to opportunities for improvement through clearer expectations, targeted interventions, and enhanced supervisory focus. Themes showing consistently strong safe performance suggest established cultural maturity, though they should continue to be reinforced to maintain positive behaviours. The distribution of results provides a balanced view of current performance:

High‑engagement areas where the workforce is actively reporting

Emerging weak signals where unsafe behaviours are becoming more frequent

Core strengths where safe behaviours dominate and reflect well‑ embedded practices

Overall, the data indicates a workforce that is engaged in observation reporting, with a clear baseline of performance across operational themes. The patterns identified here provide a strong foundation for prioritising improvement actions, directing assurance activity, and shaping targeted safety conversations that will have the greatest impact on risk reduction.

Insights derived from structured analysis of observation data, supported by AI-enabled analysis using BOOST.

Enhanced by

BOOST

Key Safety Themes

Valve Isolation Management Valve Isolation Management 2025 44% 2024 22%

Safe

56%

Unsafe

78%

The topic revolves around the importance of proper isolation valve management and maintenance practices in various work scenarios. It highlights instances of effective communication, thorough equipment checks, and adherence to safety procedures, as well as areas for improvement in valve identification and maintenance protocols. Safe Observation Highlights Effective Communication: Clear and open communication observed during valve isolation activities, ensuring understanding and adherence to correct procedures.

Thorough Equipment Checks: Instances of diligent equipment verification to confirm valve presence and functionality.

Safety Protocol Adherence: Adherence to safety protocols such as proper valve tagging, isolation techniques, and awareness of associated risks, showcasing a commitment to safety. Unsafe Observation Highlights Valve Identification: Challenges identified in valve identification processes, leading to issues such as incorrect tagging and misplaced valve IDs, warranting improvement in identification procedures.

Maintenance Protocol Shortcomings: Instances of maintenance protocol shortcomings like missing gearboxes or inadequate prolocking measures, highlighting the need for more robust maintenance practices.

Back Pressure Risk: Lack of non-return valves in the system poses a risk of back pressure during isolation, indicating a need to address potential issues for enhanced system safety.

High Level Insight

Valve Isolation Management remains one of the clearest process safety leading indicators in the report because its importance with ensuring effective control of work and barrier integrity. The year‑on‑year shift indicates that the workforce is not only identifying isolation‑related issues more effectively but is also describing both good and poor practice in a more useful and actionable way. This matters because higher‑quality isolation reporting gives supervisors, site management, and senior leaders earlier visibility of weak discipline, compliance gaps, and maintenance shortcomings, all of which are known loss‑of‑containment precursors if left unaddressed.

2024 | Issue Led and Control‑Focused Signal

The 2024 theme presents a largely issue‑driven picture, with emphasis on deviations from expected isolation practice rather than evidence of stable, repeatable control.

Heavier unsafe weighting: A greater proportion of unsafe observations points to inconsistent valve line‑up, tagging, and maintenance discipline. Limited positive reinforcement: There is less visibility of what good isolation control looks like in practice, reducing the usefulness of the data as a coaching and reinforcement tool. Strong warning signal: For a senior reviewer, the 2024 output reads as a warning around verification quality, isolation application, and routine barrier assurance, indicating fragility in control effectiveness rather than isolated failure.

2025 | More Mature, Actionable, and Balanced

By 2025, the theme is materially more useful for leadership review, reflecting improved reporting maturity and frontline

understanding.

Stronger positive pro file: An increase in safe observations suggests better adherence to isolation procedures and clearer recognition of compliant practice at the frontline. Sharper unsafe themes: Unsafe observations remain important but are now framed more clearly around specific gaps, including valve identification issues, maintenance shortfalls, and back‑pressure management. I mproved reporting maturity: The balance between positive reinforcement and targeted concern gives leaders a more reliable basis for risk‑based prioritisation, focused intervention, and sustaining good practice.

Enhanced by

BOOST

Key Safety Themes

Door Safety Management Door Safety Management 2025 14% 2024 7%

Safe

86%

Unsafe

93%

The topic consists of various instances where doors on the vessel were found open, damaged, or blocked, posing safety hazards and security risks. These incidents include doors not being closed, doors damaged due to contact with door frames, emergency doors blocked, fire doors open, and doors leading to permit areas being wedged open. Safe Observation Highlights Proper Response: Immediate actions were taken to rectify door issues, such as closing open doors, contacting mechanics for repairs, and placing warning signs for safety. Unsafe Observation Highlights Safety Hazards: Doors being left open or blocked pose significant safety risks, including potential injuries, hindrance in emergency situations, and reduced security measures.

Security Concerns: Leaving doors open to permit areas or fire doors can compromise security protocols and permit unauthorised access to restricted areas, impacting overall vessel security.

High Level Insight

Door Safety Management remains a predominantly negative theme, but the quality and usefulness of the 2025 analysis is notably stronger than in 2024. In 2025, issues are no longer described simply as damaged or poorly managed doors. Instead, the narrative increasingly connects door conditions to blocked egress, degraded compartment integrity, and wider security implications. For operations and HSE leaders, this is an important shift, it

moves the discussion away from basic housekeeping or maintenance defects and towards barrier function, emergency preparedness, and operational resilience, enabling more targeted and proportionate interventions.

2024 | Failure‑Focused and Descriptive

The 2024 view is dominated by failure states and contains little positive evidence of control being maintained well.

Issue-dominated profile: Broken mechanisms, poor condition and doors being left open form the core of the narrative. Narrow framing: While problems are clearly identified, there is limited articulation of the operational consequences for escape routes, access control, or emergency response effectiveness. Limited leadership value: The absence of positive examples or richer categorisation makes the insight more descriptive than decision-supportive, offering limited help in prioritising action beyond basic defect correction.

2025 | Clearer, More Mature, and Barrier‑Focused

The 2025 theme is broader, clearer and more operationally mature, while still showing that this is an active concern.

alan ed reporting: n increase in safe observations no highlights prompt reporting and rectification behaviours, helping to reinforce hat good looks like in practice. learer unsafe groupings: nsafe observations are more clearly differentiated into actionable categories such as blocked doors, edged open doors, damaged closures, and access control failures. arrier relevan e made e pli it: eporting no explicitly links door condition to emergency access, escape integrity, fire and gas compartmentalisation, and security performance, making the risk significance clearer and more compelling for leaders. B

‑

Enhanced y b

BOOST

Key Safety Themes

Barrier Management Barrier Management 2025

50%

2024

14%

Safe

Unsafe

50% 86%

The topic of barrier management highlights instances of both effective and ineffective barrier practices across various work sites. Positive aspects include excellent barrier control demonstrated in certain work scopes, with complete barriers preventing access and clear signage. However, negatives include instances of barriers being ineffective or missing, leading to unauthorised access and confusion regarding barrier ownership. Safe Observation Highlights Effective Barrier Control Demonstrated: Work party showed excellent barrier control during Air compressor cooler removal workscope, with complete barriers and clear signs preventing access.

Proper Signage and Barrier Placement: Positive feedback on work party adding barriers to work sites and extending barriers to cover potential hazards like crossing hoses during rig up.

Good Barrier Management Practices: Acknowledgement of work party’s proper overhead barrier management to prevent access below as per risk assessment. Unsafe Observation Highlights Ineffective Barriers at Multiple Work Sites: Observed multiple work sites with ineffective barriers, including missing signage, removed chains allowing access, and inadequate barrier presence despite job requirements.

Confusion and Inconsistencies in Barrier Controls: Highlighted issues around conflicting barriers, lack of clear ‘wrong side’ signage, and barriers closing off walkways unnecessarily, leading to confusion and inefficiencies.

Unattended Barriers and Lack of Ownership: Notes instances of barriers being left unattended for extended periods, with no signs indicating responsible parties or reasons for barriers being in place.

High Level Insight Barrier Management shows a clear improvement in analytical quality and maturity from 2024 to 2025, even though the underlying risks remain significant. In 2024, the data highlights both good and poor practice, but much of the unsafe narrative is broad and generic. By 2025, the reporting is more precise and operationally grounded. It identifies incomplete barriers, missing signage, unclear communication, and obstructed escape routes in a way that is much closer to root cause and potential consequence. This gives leaders a stronger platform for meaningful assurance conversations, particularly where exclusion zones and worksite controls sit directly within major accident hazard (MAH) exposure paths.

2024 | Mixed Maturity, Broad Risk Signal

2025 | More Precise and Risk‑Linked

The 2024 picture is mixed. There are examples of planned barrier management and communication, but the overall theme still leans toward unsafe conditions. Mixed maturity: Instances of good barrier control and communication are present, but unsafe conditions dominate the overall narrative. Broad wording: Issues such as poor signage, incomplete barriers, and weak restrictions are identified, but often without sufficient clarity to isolate underlying causes or control failures. Early warning value: For leadership, the 2024 output serves as a warning signal, but it is less developed as a decision‑making or prioritisation tool.

In 2025 the theme becomes more precise and more clearly tied to operational risk. ar er ategori ation: Incomplete barriers, missing signage, obstructed escape routes and poor communication are separated into distinct and actionable issue types. on e uen e led language: he reporting e plicitly links barrier weaknesses to ha ard e posure, access control breakdown, and escape‑route impairment, clarifying why these issues matter. tronger a uran e value: his makes the theme much more useful for leaders reviewing worksite control effectiveness, I discipline and the uality of task setup, particularly in high‑risk areas. Sh

S MOPS

nhanced y b

BOOST

Key Safety Themes

Lighting Safety Concerns

Lighting Safety Concerns 2025

18%

2024

14%

Safe

Unsafe

82% 86%

This topic revolves around issues related to lighting maintenance and safety. Observations highlight instances of inadequate lighting, temporary emergency lights, and safety hazards due to faulty or poorly maintained lighting fixtures. There is a clear need for improved lighting standards and maintenance procedures to ensure the safety of personnel and prevent potential accidents. Safe Observation Highlights No highlights Unsafe Observation Highlights Inadequate Lighting Maintenance: Several instances of poor lighting conditions reported across different areas of the vessel, indicating a lack of regular maintenance and inspection.

Safety Hazards: Safety risks identified due to issues such as rusted light brackets, lights hanging on safety wires, and improperly secured light fittings, posing potential hazards to personnel.

Emergency Lighting Concerns: Issues with emergency lighting noted, such as lights turning off during blackouts when the emergency generator starts, highlighting a critical safety concern that needs to be addressed promptly.

High Level Insight Lighting safety concerns remain a meaningful theme across both years, but the emphasis changes. The 2024 narrative feels technical and incident-led, pointing to widespread degradation, maintenance backlog and deficiencies affecting emergency lighting. By 2025 the theme is tighter and more consequence-oriented, linking degraded lighting directly to work efficiency, hazard recognition and emergency preparedness. That is an important step forward. Lighting is often treated as a secondary issue, yet for offshore operations it is closely tied to safe access, situational awareness and emergency response capability. The 2025 insight better reflects this reality.

2024 | Technically Detailed but Condition‑Focused

2025 | More Synthesised and Risk‑Linked

The 2024 theme is detailed and operationally rich, with multiple sub-categories describing degraded lighting systems and maintenance shortcomings across the asset.

The 2025 picture is shorter but more mature. The analysis is more structured and links the issue more clearly to operational risk and barrier performance.

Systemic degradation signal: Observations reference

Sharper categories: The focus narrows to lighting

inadequate maintenance, emergency lighting concerns

maintenance and the condition of lighting supporting

and physical defects such as rusted brackets and exposed

lifesaving equipment and critical areas.

wiring.

Clear risk language: The analysis explicitly highlights

Technical depth: The narrative draws on examples from

reduced work efficiency, impaired hazard recognition, and

multiple locations, indicating the issue is widespread

compromised emergency preparedness.

rather than isolated.

etter synthesis: The reporting feels less like a list of

Maintenance backlog concern: The overall impression is

individual issues and more like an interpreted view of a

of a known condition that is not being rectified

recurring barrier‑health weakness, improving its value for

consistently or proactively pointing to weak prioritisation

assurance and prioritisation.

or resource constraints rather than sporadic failure.

nhanced by

BOOST

Key Safety Themes

Safe Deck Operations

Safe Deck Operations 2025

85%

2024

93%

Safe

Unsafe

15% 7%

Overall, the deck crew demonstrated good communication, adherence to safety protocols, and effective coordination during crane lifting operations. Safe Observation Highlights Effective Communication: Good use of radio communication and clear signals between crew members and crane operators.

Safety Adherence: Consistent use of barriers, signs, correct PPE, and adherence to lifting procedures.

Coordination: Efficient coordination between work parties, split teams, and clear communication with the crane operator.

Safety Measures: Utilisation of hands-free tools, hi-vis vests for visibility, and ensuring safe positioning during lifts.

Task Control: Well-controlled operations, effective task announcements via tannoy, and maintaining safe distances during lifting. Unsafe Observation Highlights Weather Considerations: Need to ensure safety during marginal weather conditions, particularly regarding crane operations.

Enhanced Training: Opportunity to further enhance training on specific lifting accessories and procedures for varied lifting scenarios.

High Level Insight Safe Deck Operations stands out as a strong benchmark theme. While unsafe observations remain present in 2025, they are limited in number, narrowly scoped, and framed as improvement opportunities rather than indicators of systemic failure. This supports the conclusion that control of work is generally strong and consistently applied, while still warranting ongoing vigilance.

2024 | Strong Performance with Sensible Improvement Points

2025 | Confident, Consistent, and BenchmarkReady

The 2024 theme presents a largely positive view of deck operations, while still retaining credible learning

2025 reporting is concise, consistently positive and free from

opportunities.

Strong operational control: Clear communication, correct positioning, effective PPE use, and coordination between deck, crane, and supporting teams are consistently evident. Targeted improvement markers: Weather considerations and training on lifting accessories are identified as focused improvements rather than systemic weaknesses High coaching value: The narrative provides a practical and credible description of what disciplined deck operations look like in everyday execution.

unsafe highlight categories.

Strong sa fe weighting: Safe observations make up the clear majority of the 2025 data, highlighting effective communication, coordinated teamwork, correct use of lifting tools, and adherence to established procedures. L imited unsafe observations: A small proportion of unsafe observations remains. Narrowly focused and primarily related to weather judgement during marginal

conditions and training opportunities for specific lifting accessories, rather than fundamental failures in lifting discipline or control of work.

I mprovement‑led: Unsafe signals are framed as targeted

improvement points, not indicators of systemic breakdown. This suggests that while performance is strong, refinement is still required in edge‑case decision‑making and capability depth.

B enchmark value with caution: This theme continues to

act as a useful benchmark theme for effective frontline coordination and task execution. However, residual unsafe observations reinforce the need for continued verification, active supervision, and a deliberate stance of chronic unease to prevent complacency in high‑hazard activity.

Key Safety Themes

Unsafe Cable Trays

Unsafe Cable Trays 2025

13%

New For 2025

Safe

Unsafe

87%

The topic revolves around multiple instances of cable trays being either poorly secured, detached, or in a state of disrepair. These issues pose risks of falling objects, injury, and damage to cables and infrastructure. Safe Observation Highlights Awareness of Issues: Observation and recognition of potential hazards related to insecure cable trays.

Proactive Measures: Taking precautions such as barriering off areas and conducting inspections to prevent accidents. Unsafe Observation Highlights Poor Cable Tray Maintenance: Instances of badly corroded cable cleats, detached trays, and inadequate securing methods.

Risk of Falling Objects: Danger posed by items being placed on cable trays, leading to potential falls and injuries.

Structural Weakness: Issues such as loose supports, weakened trays, and insecure fastenings compromising the structural integrity.

High Level Insight Unsafe Cable Trays emerges as a new and significant theme in 2025 and should be treated as an asset integrity and barrier‑health warning, rather than a minor maintenance concern. The data is heavily weighted toward unsafe observations, with repeated references to insecure, corroded, detached, and overloaded trays. In the context of ageing assets, this is material because it cuts across structural integrity, dropped‑object risk, and electrical vulnerability. The consistency and repetition of observations suggest a recognisable degradation pathway, rather than isolated defects. This is precisely the type of weak signal that should trigger focused inspections, maintenance prioritisation, and stronger follow‑through, before escalation into a more serious integrity or accident risk.

2025 The 2025 output describes a strongly negative integrity theme with limited positive counterbalance. Safe observations exist, but they mainly reflect issue recognition and temporary controls rather than evidence of a well-controlled condition. This emerging theme suggests rising prevalence and/or better reporting quality

High unsafe weighting: The extracted chart reports 87% unsafe observations across a large volume of entries, indicating a widespread and recurring concern. Clear degradation pattern: The narrative points to poorly secured, detached, corroded and weakened trays, with additional risk from items being stored or resting on them. Barrier-health relevance: These conditions increase the potential for dropped objects, injury, and infrastructure damage, while also signalling progressive asset integrity deterioration and potential electrical risk.

Enhanced by

BOOST

Key Safety Themes

Corrosion Control Measures

Corrosion Control Measures 2025

24%

New For 2025

Safe

Unsafe

76%

The topic revolves around observations of various pipe supports and pipework conditions, highlighting instances of corrosion, lack of proper support, loose bolts, and potential safety hazards. It’s crucial to address these issues promptly to prevent damage or injury. Safe Observation Highlights Thorough Inspections: Regular inspections are being conducted to identify issues with pipe supports and pipework.

Safety Awareness: Observations are being made with a focus on potential safety hazards and their implications. Unsafe Observation Highlights Corrosion Issues: Corrosion and deterioration of pipe supports leading to reduced support and safety risks.

Loose Bolts: Instances of loose bolts and missing support components compromising the integrity of the pipework.

Lack of Proper Installation: Missing rubber shims between pipework and supports, leading to metal-to-metal contact and potential wear.

High Level Insight Corrosion Control Measures emerges as a new theme in 2025, and the pattern it reveals is highly material for process

safety and asset integrity leadership. The observations show a sustained concentration of unsafe conditions linked to corrosion, loose or missing bolts, and poor support installation. This matters because the consequences extend beyond local maintenance defects into pipework stability, degradation progression, and potential loss‑of‑containment exposure.

The leadership value of this theme lies in turning previously scattered integrity concerns into a visible, recurring signal. This supports more focused inspection, prioritisation, and informed conversations about ageing‑asset discipline, rather than relying on isolated defect management.

2025 The 2025 analysis shows a heavily negative profile, with limited positive indicators largely associated with inspection activity and hazard awareness behaviour, rather than confirmed control or remediation. Integrity concern made visible: Corroded supports, missing or loose bolts and poor fit-up are repeatedly identified as the dominant failure modes across the data set. Direct consequence link: The narrative makes clear that these conditions weaken pipework, increase the chance of damage or leaks and reduce confidence in structural integrity. Strong leadership signal: With 76% unsafe observations across 761 entries, this theme provides a clear, data‑backed basis for strengthening barrier assurance reviews, prioritising inspections, and applying more risk‑based maintenance planning.

Enhanced by

BOOST

New For 2025

Key Safety Themes

Deluge System Testing

2025

Safe

47%

Unsafe

53%

The observations on deluge testing and maintenance highlight both positive and negative aspects. Positive aspects include thorough safety checks before testing and good communication practices. However, there are concerns regarding equipment integrity, procedural adherence, and documentation accuracy.

Safe Observation Highlights Comprehensive Safety Procedures: Work parties conducted pre-testing inspections and made multiple checks to ensure the safety of all personnel involved in deluge testing.

Effective Communication: Clear communication through tannoys and individual checks ensured work parties were aware of deluge testing activities.

Proactive Approach: Observations indicate proactive measures such as completion of testing with necessary precautions like BCC and inhibition in place.

Unsafe Observation Highlights Equipment Integrity Concerns: Issues such as open deluge cabinet doors, damaged hoses near deluge systems, and missing components on deluge lines raise concerns about equipment integrity and safety.

Procedural Lapses: Lack of accuracy in P&ID, missing steps in procedures like closing drain valves, and the need for competence in process isolations indicate procedural lapses.

Documentation Inaccuracies: Identification of inaccurate information in the POPM and outdated P&ID underscores the importance of updating documentation for effective system maintenance.

High Level Insight

eluge System Testing emerges as a new and important theme in

mi ed and cautionary picture, rather than a simple

“

”

good

“

”

bad

2025

, and its value lies in the fact that it presents a

signal.

orkforce observations show disciplined

frontline e ecution, strong communication, and a proactive approach to testing activities.

t the same time,

weaknesses are evident in underlying procedures, component condition, and technical documentation.

or senior leaders, this contrast is particularly important.

t suggests that people may be operating effectively within a

system whose technical foundations are not consistently robust. This kind of gap can distort assurance of a

‑

safety critical system, creating a risk that strong behaviour masks underlying vulnerabilities.

2025

The

2025

output gives a balanced but cautionary picture. Positive behaviours are evident, but they sit alongside

fi Strong execution signal: Pre‑testing discipline, clear communication, task coordination, and proactive preparation are repeatedly observed and reflect good frontline ownership of testing activities. Underlying system weaknesses: Open cabinets, damaged nozzles, missed procedural steps, and poor or inaccurate technical documentation (including P&IDs) point to deeper assurance gaps beyond frontline behaviour. High process-safety relevance: Because the deluge system is safety-critical, weaknesses in documentation accuracy, equipment condition, or procedural completeness should be treated as process‑safety concerns, not routine maintenance issues.

recurring issues that affect con

dence in the reliability of a safety critical system.

nhanced

BOOST

Operational Discipline

A common thread through the themes

The analysis of workforce observations across 2024 and 2025 highlights a consistent and recurring pattern linked to Operational Discipline, defined as the reliable and repeatable application of established processes, standards, and controls. Using the revised dataset, focused on topic-level percentage changes, the data shows a wide range of variation across individual topics. When aggregated at a thematic level, however, a clearer picture emerges: all major areas demonstrate both increasing exposures combined with inconsistent execution, reinforcing that challenges in operational discipline are systemic rather than isolated.

Worksite discipline stayed consistent from 2024 (Housekeeping, access, storage, environment)

T ask discipline (Execution, planning, close-out) + 35% increase from 2024

The first consistent theme is the standard of basic worksite discipline, particularly in routine activities. Observations include:

There is a mixed picture in how tasks are executed, with evidence of both strong and inconsistent practices. Positive observations demonstrate:

Waste management and contamination show mixed performance (small increases and decreases)

Hose management shows inconsistent adherence across activities

Storage and bunding practices are not uniformly applied These types of issues are observed across multiple themes and appear more frequently in 2025 across a broader range of activities. While individually low in volume, their collective presence across the dataset indicates early indicators of weakened operational discipline in the application of fundamental standards. Insight: These are low-complexity controls, but their inconsistent application is a key indicator of potentially declining operational discipline.

Control of work discipline (Permits, isolations, barriers) + 41% increase from 2024 A recurring theme across the dataset relates to the consistent application and ownership of formal controls. Observations highlight:

Ongoing issues with permit compliance, including incomplete documentation and missed controls

Inconsistencies in isolation verification, tagging, and standard methods

Confusion and lack of ownership in barrier management, including poor signage and unmanaged or redundant barriers These issues are evident across both 2024 and 2025, demonstrating persistence rather than resolution. The pattern suggests that while control systems are well established, they are not being applied with consistent rigor in all situations.

G ood communication and coordination

Effective use of procedures during higher-risk

activities

Strong team engagement during task briefings

However, these are offset by:

I ncomplete task close-out (e.g. tools, clean-up, equipment reset)

Variability in following procedures step-by-step

Gaps in planning and sequencing, particularly in routine tasks

These patterns are seen across activities such as deck operations, container handling, and pressure testing, and are consistent across both years. Insight: Teams often demonstrate they know the correct standard, but execution is not consistently repeatable under all conditions.

Asset an

d system discipline + 39% increase from

2024 (Equipment, maintenance, documentation)

Another recurring theme relates to the integrity and management of equipment, processes & systems. Observations highlight:

I ssues with fire safety equipment, deluge systems,

and equipment

Evidence of outdated or inaccurate documentation

(e.g. P&IDs)

Gaps in maintenance, inspection, and equipment readiness

Insight: There is a growing gap between expected system integrity and field execution.

Insight: The gap appears to be not in the system itself, but in the reliability of its execution.

Enhanced by

BOOST

Operational Discipline

A common thread through the themes

The challenge is not the absence of standards, but inconsistent execution in practice. “Follow-through is the cornerstone of execution.”

Larry Bossidy

2024 vs 2025 - Persistence Rather Than Resolution When comparing observations across 2024 and 2025, the data does not indicate that these issues have been addressed. Instead: The same themes continue to appear across both years.

Several themes are observed across a wider range of activities in 2025.

Some areas show increased visibility, but not clear resolution.

This should not be interpreted as isolated increases, but rather as a persistent pattern of recurring issues that have not been fully addressed.

A Weak Signal, but a Strong Pattern Individually, these observations may appear low frequency. However, collectively they form a strong and consistent pattern indicative of gaps in operational discipline. The recurrence of similar issues across multiple themes and different types of activities, for both 2024 and 2025, demonstrates that these are not one-off events, but underlying behavioural and systemic challenges.

Conclusion & Risk Implication The data shows a clear increase (20%) in operational discipline-related issues, with strong signals across:

Basic Controls

Worksite Standards

Equipment & Maintenance

Including permits, isolations, and barriers.

Including housekeeping and storage.

Including inspections and preventative maintenance.

These are well-known precursors to higher consequence events, and their persistence indicates a systemic issue, not isolated failures. Small, repeated lapses in discipline are driving increased risk exposure. Improvement requires a shift from knowing the standard to consistently applying it every time, reducing variability and enabling proactive intervention before risks escalate.

Enhanced by

BOOST

Industry Alignment

Themes, Learnings and Expectations

Theme

Step Change in Safety HVLs / Resources

Industry Learnings

Valve Isolation Management

Life Saving Rules Work Authorisation Podcast

HSE MAH inspections repeatedly cite isolation failures as precursors to LOPC events.

Life Saving Rules Work Authorisation Video Resource

Door Safety Management

Emergency Response MAH Awareness Resource

Dropped Objects Resource

Lighting Safety Concerns

Practical Steps to Prevent Slips, Trips and Falls Resource

Lifting Operations Video Resource

HSE COMAH exercises show blocked or inoperable doors as a recurring finding.

HSE Findings: Poor escaperoute maintenance, blocked fire doors, degraded integrity of boundary/compartment doors frequently appear in emergency preparedness inspections. HSE findings: “Tape is not a barrier” is a common enforcement message for deck operations.

OEUK ageing-assets reports highlight poor lighting as a critical operational and emergency-readiness issue.

Emergency Response MAH Awareness Resource

PSL Principles: Sustain barriers; Respect hazards; Maintain safe egress.

PSL Principles: Control worksite risks; Maintain barriers; Recognise change; Enforce safe work boundaries.

HSE Findings: Inadequate barricading, poor exclusion-zone management, and failure to reinforce LoF controls appear frequently in lifting and SIMOPS inspections.

Prevention of Personal Injuries Resource Pack

Safe Deck Operations

PSL Principles: Maintain safe isolation; Verify plant line-up; Stop if unexpected occurs.

HSE Findings: Poor verification, weak PTW communication, incorrect valve state during maintenance are common drivers in HSE offshore inspection reports.

MAH Emergency Response Workgroup

Physical Barrier Management (cones, tape, exclusion zones)

Links to PSL Principles + HSE Inspection Findings

See above Lighting Safety Concerns links.

HSE deck-operation reports emphasise lift planning, communication quality, and weather conditions as critical risk factors.

PSL Principles: Sustain barriers; Respect hazards; Monitor worksite conditions.

HSE Findings: Night-time inspections frequently raise concerns over inadequate illumination impacting hazard recognition and emergency evacuation capability. PSL Principles: Apply procedures; Walk the line; Control ignition sources; Recognise weak signals.

HSE Findings: Poor signalling, inadequate lift plans, and weather mismanagement are frequently cited in incident investigations and proactive inspections.

Enhanced by

BOOST

Industry Alignment

Themes, Learnings and Expectations

Theme

Step Change in Safety HVLs / Resources

Unsafe Cable Trays

Asset Integrity Toolkit Dropped Objects Resource

Industry Learnings

Links to PSL Principles + HSE Inspection Findings

Cable tray corrosion, loose supports, and overloaded trays are repeatedly identified as ageing-asset failures.

PSL Principles: Sustain barriers; Respect hazards; Improve understanding of asset condition.

HSE Findings: Cable-routing degradation appears in asset integrity inspections and is often linked to dropped-object risk and electrical vulnerability.

Corrosion Control Measures

Hydrocarbon Release Prevention Guidance Hydrocarbon Gas Releases Shared Experience

HSE & OEUK identify corrosion as a leading contributor to Tier 1 & Tier 2 LOPCs.

PSL Principles: Sustain barriers; Respect hazards; Stay within operating limits; Monitor equipment condition.

HSE Findings: CUI, corrosion under supports, missing shims, and weakened pipework frequently show up in LOPC investigation themes and regulatory notices

Enhanced by

BOOST

End of Document This report was designed and developed by Empirisys in collaboration with Step Change in Safety e-obs@stepchangeinsafety.com #PlayYourPart