Tag: Evaluation

2011 ISN Annual Users Conference: Industry Presentations and Owner Client Panelists

Welcome to ISN’s 2011 Annual Users Conference.  The ISN Annual Users Conference is an opportunity for Owner Clients, contractors, and other industry entities to come together and discuss best practices in contactor health, safety, and procurement. Owner Clients are sharing information on how their company uses ISNetworld to track and manage contractor compliance in industry breakout sessions. As every Owner Clients grades and use the system differently, each discusses the criteria to grade their contractors and the most important items in prequalification.

During each industry breakout session, multiple Owner Clients provide insight to why they have made the decision to use ISNetworld, what requirements are considered in their contractor approval and a brief background of their company. Many Owner Client presentations discuss the importance for contractors to populate their company information on the dashboard, as this information is used to search for new contractors. Several examples include populating your company’s dashboard contact, Federal ID number, work types, and geography served.  The forum will conclude with both Owner Clients and contractors providing feedback and answers on how their companies use ISNetworld.

Industry Presentations and Owner Client Presenters:

Refining/Chemical
HollyFrontier, Stepan Company, SunCoke Energy, Hess, Valero, ExxonMobil Refining and Supply

Midstream/Utilities/Power Generation
TransCanada, KinderMorgan, Enbridge, El Paso, Buckeye, Koch Pipeline

Upstream
Marathon, CONSOL Energy, Denbury Resources, Stone Energy, El Paso E&P

Manufacturing/Pharma/ Wood & Paper
Bristol-Myers Squib, U.S. Steel, PotashCorp, Mosaic, Longview Fibre

Mitigating Risk by Making Informed Hiring Decisions

Risk is a normal part of doing business. The risk organizations face is compounded when companies hire contractors to perform work rather than using their own internal employees. Organizations increase their risk even more when there is not a standardized and consistent method for evaluating contractor health, safety, and procurement information. Managing risk is the most important task while assessing the safety and viability of a contractor.  The safest hiring decision is made when a company is able to gather all appropriate data and synthesize it into a usable format.  Although risk may not be completely eliminated, it can be effectively managed.

The decision making processes involved in contractor management are only as good as the tools used to gather and analyze the data.  The use of third party software and other tools are invaluable to any company looking to hire and retain safe and qualified contractors in a high risk environment.

There are two major considerations when managing contractors. First is deciding on the criteria for evaluation and second is developing an effective management process to evaluate this criteria. 

Historical data, or lagging indicators, is taken into account when evaluating a contractor because past safety performance is assumed to be indicative of future performance. These key performance indicators can include the contractor’s fatality rate, their total recordable incident rate or total recordable frequency (TRIR/TRF), as well as insurance indicators with an experience modification rate (EMR) or their Worker’s Compensation rate.

Improving safety performance is what the ongoing monitoring and evaluation of a contractor’s safety data is all about.  These leading indicators can include safety and training programs, on-the-job and post job evaluations and audits. Ensuring that contractors are developing and maintaining safety programs and policies that can adequately prepare them for potential hazards is crucial in determining whether or not a contractor is dedicated to safe work practices.  Training employees on these safety programs is also a necessity to ensure they translate these programs into their work environment.    

By having a standardized contractor prequalification process in place, followed by performance monitoring and evaluating, Owner Clients are able to decrease exposure to high risk situations by making better hiring decisions.  In turn, contractors and Owner Clients alike are striving to create safer work environments.

For more information on managing risk, click here.

U.S. Nuclear Safety Practices: A Renewed Focus

With the eyes of the world focused on Japan in the wake of the recent earthquake and tsunami, the United States has begun to weigh the damage of Japan’s crisis and review the strength of current U.S. nuclear safety standards. Over the past 40 years, nuclear reactors have established themselves within the U.S. energy mix as one of the leading sources of renewable energy. With the spotlight on nuclear energy, operators and regulators in the market must be increasingly cognizant of the potential consequences of operational oversight. President Obama has recently ordered the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to conduct a “comprehensive review” of U.S. nuclear reactors.

There are 104 U.S. nuclear reactors in place; the last nuclear plant was completed in 1996. Reevaluating these reactors is a critical step to addressing the current nuclear safety practices the U.S. has in place and in determining if additional standards and regulations need to be implemented. Additionally, the NRC is proposing a 90-day review of the nuclear crisis at Japan’s Fukushima power plant to increase awareness and understanding of the current nuclear crises. Increased awareness of the series of events leading to Japan’s nuclear emergency should help strengthen the NRC’s evaluation methods and provide a helpful outline for auditing U.S. nuclear reactors.

Further research is needed to identify solid preventative measures that can promote increased nuclear security and operational control. The lessons learned from Japan’s catastrophe cannot be disregarded, and inspection of U.S. and worldwide nuclear infrastructure should be continually pursued. The destructive impact and looming consequences of Japan’s nuclear disaster serve as a reminder of the need for diligent, effective nuclear safety practices and the importance of evaluating safety standards. 

Sources
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748703858404576214664263075744-lMyQjAxMTAxMDIwMzEyNDMyWj.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0320/Secretary-Chu-says-Americans-in-no-danger-from-Japanese-nuclear-reactors/(page)/2
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2011/03/calif-panel-nuclear-safety-japan-/1