(55bo) Overcoming Motivational Biases in Hazops

Hazard and Operability Studies (HAZOPs) are one method of assessing the risk in a facility. Based on the risk ranking of a scenario, recommendations may be required to reduce the risk. Often, these recommendations require additional capital expenditure and/or operational resources. In aging plants where resources are not readily available or in greenfield projects where there is a tight timeline to start up, there is sometimes a bias to risk rank scenarios such that there is no need to add additional safeguards. Motivational biases can outweigh common sense such that scenarios are not ranked according to their real risk. We have developed a method to overcome some of these motivational biases with the use of a polling system to engage all participants in the HAZOP. Participants are asked to vote anonymously on the severity and likelihood for a given scenario, then the results are discussed. During this discussion time, arguments for all the different risk rankings are discussed, including those voted on by the minority in the room. This facilitates an open discourse about the real risks for a given scenario rather than shifting the attention to the most vocal person in the room, who may be strongly influenced by a desire to reduce spending or minimize the effort required for maintenance. Following this discussion a second poll is performed to reach a consensus. We have found this to be an effective method for reducing motivational biases and ensuring that the right decisions are made based on the most logical argument instead of based on budget or time constraints. Tracking polling results increases the accountability of participants and makes them less likely to skew the risk ranking. The requirement for consensus ensures that all opinions are heard and considered, even if they are not popular. Together these make the polling system an effective method for overcoming motivational biases in HAZOPs and ensuring that safe decisions are made.