FRAM AHP approach to analyse offshore oil well drilling and construction focused on human factors

  • Josué E. M. FrançaEmail author
  • Erik Hollnagel
  • Isaac J. A. Luquetti dos Santos
  • Assed N. Haddad
Original Article


Since the beginning of the well-drilling activities of oil and gas industry, in the 19th century, these activities have presented specific risks that, over the course of their evolution to the present day, have greatly increased their potential to cause harm to people, the environment, and corporate sustainability. Stimulated by the world’s energy needs, especially in developed and growing countries, the technology used by the O&G industry has evolved significantly, not only to increase production and profit levels, but also to reduce the risks of these activities, using reliable automation and other barriers to worker protection. However, despite all this investment, accidents such as the Deepwater Horizon, in 2010, and Odebrecht NS-32, in 2017, shown that there are still gaps in this process of evolution of protection systems, especially those used in highly complex systems such as offshore oil rigs. In addition, inevitably, the technological contribution implemented in offshore drilling systems increases their complexity and, consequently, also increases the complexity of the relationship between workers, systems, machines, and environment, definitively characterizing oil rigs as complex socio-technical systems. Keeping that in mind, a FRAM model was developed to understand the levels of complexity and show the relevant human factors that are critical for the safe operations of these workplaces, considering the natural and variability that emerges from these labour scenarios. Some functions of the FRAM model built presented significant variability, as function “Perform drilling operations”, where the most significant variabilities were observed in its 10 outputs, causing a large resonance within the model, once their couplings, mostly in their control aspects, can vary in terms of time and precision.


FRAM AHP Human Factors Offshore Drilling Construction 



  1. Abimbola M, Khan F, Khakzad N (2014) Dynamic safety risk analysis of offshore drilling. J Loss Prev Process Ind Elsevier Ltd. 30(1):74–85. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baligira R (2013) The effect of macondo blowout on risk analysis and risk management. Accessed Mar 2019
  3. Bea RG (2011) Final report on the investigation of the Macondo Well Blowout.
  4. Boebert E, Blossom JM (2016) Deepwater Horizon: A Systems Analysis of the Macondo Disaster, 1st edn, Harvard University Press, MassachusettsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carignano C, Gomes L, Araya M (2004) Tomada de Decisões em Cenários Complexos, Cengage Learning BR, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  6. Crawley F, Tyler B (2015) HAZOP: guide to best practice, 3rd edn. Elsevier Ltd, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  7. Dekker S (2019) Foundations of safety science—a century of understanding accidents and disasters, 1st edn. Taylor & Francis Group, CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ferreira PNP, Cañas JJ (2019) Assessing operational impacts of automation using functional resonance analysis method, cognition, technology and work, Springer, London. Google Scholar
  9. França J (2014) Alocação de Fatores Humanos no Gerenciamento de Riscos de Sistemas Complexos Offshore. UFRJ. Accessed Mar 2019
  10. Hill R (2018) FMV®—FRAM Model Visualizer. Zerprize.
  11. Hollnagel E (2012) FRAM: the functional resonance analysis method: modelling complex socio-technical systems, 1st edn. Ashgate, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Hollnagel E (2014) Safety-I and safety-II—the past and future of safety management, 1st edn. Routledge, SurreyGoogle Scholar
  13. Hyne NJ (2012) Nontechnical Guide to Petroleum Geology, Exploration, Drilling & Production, 3rd edn, PennWell Corporation, TulsaGoogle Scholar
  14. Jatobá A et al (2018) Patient visits in poorly developed territories: a case study with community health workers, Cognition, Technology and Work, Springer London, 20(1):125–152. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Patriarca R, Bergström J, Di Gravio G (2017) Defining the functional resonance analysis space: combining abstraction hierarchy and FRAM, Reliab Eng Syst Saf 165(2016):34–46. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Righi AW, Saurin TA (2015) Complex socio-technical systems: Characterization and management guidelines. Appl Ergon Elsevier Ltd 50:19–30. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Saaty L (1993) What Is Relative Measurement? Math Comput Model 17(413):1–12. MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Saaty TL, Vargas LG (2012) In: Hillier FS (eds) Models, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic hierarchy process, International series in operations research & management science book. Springer, New York.
  19. Sneddon A, Mearns K, Flin R (2006) Situation awareness and safety in offshore drill crews. Cogn Technol Work 8(4):255–267. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Stamatis D (2003) failure mode and effect analysis: FMEA from theory to execution, 2nd edn, ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee, WisconsinGoogle Scholar
  21. Xue L et al (2013) A safety barrier-based accident model for offshore drilling blowouts. J Loss Prev Process Ind Elsevier Ltd 26(1):164–171. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Yamamoto M, Morooka CK (2006) Dynamic positioning system of semi-submersible platform using fuzzy control. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 27(4):449–455. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zborowski M (2019) UK continental shelf: two big discoveries and more to come. JPT Online Soc Pet Eng 71(7).

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UFF (Universidade Federal Fluminense)Rio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.University of JönköpingJönköpingSweden
  3. 3.IEN (Instituto de Energia Nuclear)Rio de JaneiroBrazil
  4. 4.UFRJ (Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro)Rio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations