Effective Risk Management In Engineering Projects

#Post3 An Engineer Left the Company. Months Later, a Reboiler Exploded. Coincidence⁉️⁉️⁉️ The January 2023 reboiler explosion at the Honeywell Geismar plant is a stark reminder that your biggest risks may not be in your pipes, but in your personnel changes. According to the CSB report, the story is alarming: * A Known Risk: An October 2021 inspection identified that the reboiler shell was dangerously thin and needed replacement. * A Critical Task: The unit's maintenance engineer initiated a capital project to replace it. This project was a "key safety task." * A Personnel Change: In April 2022, that engineer left the company. * A System Failure: Honeywell failed to follow its own Management of Organizational Change (MOOC) procedure. The critical project was never reassigned. Knowledge of the reboiler's urgent condition was lost. * A Catastrophe: The reboiler ran to failure, exploding and releasing over 800 pounds of HF and 1,600 pounds of chlorine. The site's capital project system also failed, funding 78 other lower-priority or unrated projects while the critical reboiler replacement languished. This incident wasn't just a mechanical failure; it was a failure of organizational resilience. It highlights the absolute necessity of robust systems for managing personnel and organizational change (MOOC/MOPC). When an employee leaves, how do you ensure their safety-critical responsibilities are seamlessly transferred? #OrganizationalChange #MOOC #ProcessSafety #RiskManagement #HumanFactors #SafetyCulture #CapitalProjects #CSB

🚨 Case Study: ExxonMobil Baytown Refinery Explosion (2021) On December 23, 2021, a catastrophic piping rupture in the hydrodesulfurization unit of ExxonMobil’s Baytown refinery released hot flammable naphtha vapor that ignited, causing a massive fire. 🔹 Impact: Four contractors seriously injured, ~107M $ in damages. Root Causes: 🔸 Severe Sulfidation Corrosion: 14-inch elbow wall thickness as low as 0,7 mm. 🔸 Aging Infrastructure: Piping from 1962, with low-silicon steel components highly prone to accelerated corrosion. 🔸 Inadequate Risk Assessment: Hot bolting performed on compromised piping at >320 °C, above autoignition temperature. Key Lessons for Industry: 1️⃣ Material Selection Matters: Low-silicon carbon steel is vulnerable in high-sulfur environments; 100% component inspection is critical. 2️⃣ Aging Assets Require Extra Vigilance: Old Components must be thoroughly assessed before intrusive work. 3️⃣ Hot Work on Live Systems Carries High Risk: Especially where structural integrity is questionable. 4️⃣ Learn from Past Incidents: The Chevron Richmond fire (2012) showed similar low-silicon corrosion hazards; industry-wide action is essential. 💡 Takeaway: Proactive inspection, material verification, and conservative maintenance planning save lives and prevent catastrophic failures. #ProcessSafety #IncidentInvestigation #Refining #LPG #Corrosion #AssetIntegrity #LessonsLearned #IndustrialSafety

Your Procurement Cycle is a Minefield of Risks. Are You Walking Blind? Procurement Excellence | 17 JAN 2026 - Procurement always navigates hidden risks that can derail projects, inflate costs, and tarnish reputations. Ignoring them? That’s the real risk. Here are 7 CRITICAL risks lurking in your procurement cycle + how to defuse them: #1. Performance Risk ↳Suppliers underdelivering on quality/timelines. ↳Fix: Clear KPIs. Penalty clauses. Regular performance reviews. #2.Specification Risk ↳Vague requirements lead to wrong deliverables. ↳Fix:Collaborate with stakeholders upfront & freeze specs before sourcing. #3. Supplier Financial Risk ↳Bankrupt suppliers = halted operations. ↳Fix:Run credit checks, diversify suppliers, demand financial disclosures. #4. Reputation Risk (ESG) ↳Child labor or pollution in supply chain = brand crisis. ↳Fix: Supplier ESG screenings. Audits. Sustainability clauses. #5. Price Volatility Risk ↳Market swings crush budgets. ↳Fix: Fixed-price contracts. Hedging strategies. Cost-indexed clauses. #6. Fraud & Corruption Risk ↳Kickbacks, fake invoicing, collusion. ↳Fix: Segregate duties. Whistleblower policies. AI-powered anomaly detection. #7. Contract Leakage Risk ↳Unused discounts, auto-renewals, scope creep. ↳Fix:Centralized contract repository. Milestone alerts. Spend analytics. #Bonus I: Over-Reliance Risk ↳One supplier holds 80% of your spend. ↳Fix: Strategic supplier diversification. #Bonus II: Cybersecurity Risk ↳Suppliers accessing your systems >>data breaches. ↳Fix:Vendor security assessments. Zero-trust architecture. #Bonus III: Supply Disruption Risk ↳Natural disasters, geopolitics or supplier failures. ↳Fix: Dual sourcing, Safety stock & Real-time supply chain monitoring. Risk Mitigation Playbook: ✅ Proactive: Map risks at EVERY stage ✅ Use AI for predictive analytics, blockchain for traceability. ✅ Train & empower teams to spot red flags early. ✅ Collaborate & partner with Legal, Finance, Operations. Risk-aware procurement NOT about avoiding suppliers Procurement can’t own risk alone! Build resilient, ethical & agile supply chains that drive sustainable value. What risks keep YOU up at night? ♻️ Share to help someone in your network. ➕️ Follow Frederick for more content like this. #ProcurementExcellence #RiskManagement #Leadership

STOP Calling “Training” the Root Cause. It’s Not. (And it’s costing companies real money + real lives.) One of the most common phrases I see in incident investigation reports? ➡️ “Root Cause: Lack of training.” Let me be blunt: Training is almost never the true root cause. It’s an easy answer. A convenient answer. But it’s not the right answer. If someone sits through the training… If someone can recite back the steps… If someone signed the sheet… …but the incident still happened, the problem isn’t training. Real root causes look like this: • A system that doesn’t reinforce critical behaviors. • Production pressure that rewards speed over safety. • Supervisors who were never trained to coach risk-based decision-making. • Broken communication loops between ops, maintenance, and safety. • Policies written for audits, not for real people. • Engineering controls that were never implemented because they “cost too much.” • A cultural norm of workaround > work-as-designed. These are the roots. Training is just a branch. Here’s the truth: When “training” becomes the default root cause, it lets the system off the hook. And if you’re blaming workers when the system is the real problem, you’re guaranteeing the incident will happen again. What high-performing organizations do instead: • Use human-factors thinking, not blame-based thinking • Ask why the environment allowed the error, not why the person made it • Evaluate workload, equipment design, conflicting priorities, and organizational signals • Treat workers as the source of insight, not the source of failure • Document root causes that leadership can actually act on — not ones that just check a box My challenge to every safety + operations leader: Next time an incident happens, don’t ask, ❌ “Who messed up?” or ❌ “Do they need more training?” Ask this instead: “What conditions set this event up to occur, and how do we eliminate them permanently?” That’s root cause. That’s prevention. That’s leadership.

The Dirty Dozen – 12 Human Factors That Threaten Aviation Safety In aviation, even the smallest mistake can have massive consequences. That’s why safety isn’t just about machines—it’s about people. The “Dirty Dozen” refers to 12 human factors identified by aviation experts that commonly contribute to errors and accidents in aircraft maintenance and operations. Let’s break them down: 1. Lack of Awareness – Not fully understanding what’s happening around you can lead to missed details and serious mistakes. 2. Norms – “This is how we always do it” can be dangerous if procedures are outdated or wrong. 3. Lack of Communication – Poor handovers, unclear messages, or missing information can lead to confusion and errors. 4. Complacency – Getting too comfortable or overconfident can cause you to overlook important steps. 5. Lack of Knowledge – Incomplete training or unfamiliarity with equipment can put everyone at risk. 6. Distractions – Even small interruptions during critical tasks can lead to overlooked steps or incorrect actions. 7. Lack of Teamwork – When teams don’t cooperate effectively, mistakes are more likely to slip through. 8. Fatigue – Tired minds and bodies don’t function well. Long hours and lack of rest impair judgment and performance. 9. Lack of Resources – Missing tools, parts, time, or staff can force people to cut corners. 10. Pressure – Tight deadlines or external expectations can push individuals to rush or take unsafe shortcuts. 11. Lack of Assertiveness – When someone doesn’t speak up about concerns, problems can go unaddressed. 12. Stress – Personal or job-related stress can distract and reduce concentration, leading to poor decisions. Why it matters: In aviation, there’s no room for error. Each of these factors has contributed to real incidents in the past. Recognizing and addressing them can prevent accidents, save lives, and ensure operations run smoothly. Who should care? This isn’t just for pilots or engineers—anyone working in aviation, maintenance, safety, or logistics needs to understand the Dirty Dozen. Even professionals in healthcare, manufacturing, or construction can relate to these risk factors. Be alert. Be aware. Be accountable. The skies are safer when we all take responsibility.

𝐑𝐞𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐈’𝐯𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐝, 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫: 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬. Taking shortcuts can lead to wasted money and a world of headaches downstream. (𝘙𝘢𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶'𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘴𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘢𝘴𝘵-𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘙𝘍𝘗 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴, 𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘱𝘶𝘴𝘩 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘳𝘴, 𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘬𝘴?!) 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐈'𝐯𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝: 💡 𝙁𝙤𝙘𝙪𝙨 𝙛𝙞𝙧𝙨𝙩: Be specific about your needs in RFx docs. If you’re unclear, suppliers will be, too. Before going to RFP, always have quantifiable evaluation criteria finalized and approved by the Spend Owner. 💡 𝙄𝙩’𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙘𝙚: The cheapest option often costs the most in the long run. Prioritize value over price. Suppliers who price things materially lower than benchmark norms usually cut corners somewhere to meet margins. 💡 𝘾𝙝𝙚𝙘𝙠 𝙧𝙚𝙛𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝𝙡𝙮: Source independent references via your network. Past performance tells the real story. Ask the right questions and listen closely to the answers.  💡 𝙏𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙠 𝙖𝙝𝙚𝙖𝙙: Can the supplier grow and evolve with your business? Are they innovative and flexible? Does their company culture and ways of working align with yours?  💡 𝙆𝙣𝙤𝙬 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙠𝙨: Most suppliers come with some level of risk, the key is understanding and managing it. Conduct due diligence on short-listed suppliers. Outputs should inform the down-selection process, with material deficiency action items included in the contract. 💡 𝘾𝙝𝙤𝙤𝙨𝙚 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙨, 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙫𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙤𝙧𝙨: The best suppliers care about your long-term success and aligning with your goals.  Look at proposals holistically, thinking beyond the transaction and into value creation. 𝐇𝐞𝐫𝐞’𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠: Looking back, I’ve been at firms in seasons where costs were prioritized over total value, often leading to short-term gains but long-term challenges. There were times I should’ve taken a firmer stance about material supplier risks identified and bias in the selection process.  As procurement peeps, we provide recommendations based on long-term value, risk management, and partnership potential. This includes having the courage to speak up with informed and actionable guidance when things don't pass muster. The goal is to ensure sourcing outcomes build a foundation for success, not just a quick win. 📢 𝙋.𝙎. 𝙒𝙝𝙖𝙩 “𝙨𝙘𝙝𝙤𝙤𝙡 𝙤𝙛 𝙝𝙖𝙧𝙙 𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙘𝙠𝙨” 𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙡𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙬𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙨𝙝𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙧 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙘𝙪𝙧𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙛?

𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗗𝗼 𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗕𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗥𝗶𝘀𝗸 & 𝗘𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁?   This is a question that every procurement team answers differently. It's tightly linked to risk culture and regulatory constraints.   Some organisations choose full control, documenting and actively approving every step of the process and checking compliance of all suppliers.   𝗜𝘁'𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟭𝟬𝟬% 𝘀𝗮𝗳𝗲 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗰𝗵 but can be cost-prohibitive and impossible to operate due to the impact on speed and efficiency of processes. It's raising the Cost of Compliance drastically and leads to people looking for loopholes and shortcuts.   Others take 𝗮 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸-𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗰𝗵, tailoring their controls based on the risk profile of each process. For high-risk activities, they enforce robust controls, detailed documentation, multiple approvals, and audits whereas for lower-risk activities they may follow a more pragmatic approach supporting workflow automation, speed and efficiency of processes. It's providing a leaner foundation but may expose some processes to inefficiencies and compliance gaps.   So is there a right or wrong approach to risk vs efficiency? Not really. It's about finding balance and using technology in favour of leaner processes.   Let's look at some cases i recently came across: 1️⃣ 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗲�� 𝗱𝘂𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲: Should all suppliers be checked on financials & compliance? For strategic or high-risk suppliers, yes. But for low-spend or small suppliers, a lighter, risk-based approach can help maintain efficiency. 2️⃣ 𝟯-𝗪𝗮𝘆 𝘃𝘀. 𝟰-𝗪𝗮𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗰𝗵: Is 4-way match (purchase order, order confirmation, receipt and invoice) always necessary? For critical or high-value goods, this extra control mitigates quality & payment errors. In lower-risk scenarios/catalog purchases, a 3-way match may totally suffice.   3️⃣ 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀: Do all procurement transactions need multi-level sign-offs? High-value/sensitive purchases might require multiple approvals. However, automating approvals for low-value, recurring purchases reduces cycle times without compromising control.   4️⃣ 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁: Should every contract be reviewed by legal? For high-complexity agreements, surely. But using contract templates for low-risk purchases can improve process effectiveness while maintaining compliance.   For an optimal balance, a risk-based approach will need to consider process-specific risk levels and tailored controls. Technology can make a real difference here: ▪️ Automating in-process and post-mortem activities with AI, reducing manual checks and improving process efficiency ▪️ Profiling risks and determining extra checks where fraud is typical so that risk mitigation is not impacting speed. ▪️ As a Gate Checker screening for patterns, adjusting the level of controls flexibly based on pre-defined conditions How do you balance risk & process efficiency? Where can Tech help?

Procurement teams struggle to measure risk mitigation but it’s the foundation of what we do. Because we can’t articulate the value in CFO-friendly terms… …millions of pounds never make it onto the Procurement Value Report. And here’s the thing: Risk mitigation isn’t the sole domain of the Risk team. Procurement is the first line of defence against supply chain disruption, supplier failure, and compliance breaches. The value IS measurable, in numbers your CFO will respect. Here are 6 procurement-specific ways to prove it and exactly how to capture each one: 1️⃣ Cost Avoidance from Supplier Disruptions 💡 Example: “Avoided £1.6M in downtime by identifying a critical supplier at risk of insolvency six months early.” ✍ Capture it: Compare projected cost of disruption (lost output, emergency spend) with actual cost after mitigation. 2️⃣ Reduction in Supply Chain Risk Exposure 💡 Example: Supplier risk score drops from 8 → 4, potential impact £2M → exposure cut by £1M. ✍ Capture it: Track supplier risk scores quarterly × estimated financial impact of a disruption. 3️⃣ Avoided Expediting / Spot Buy Costs 💡 Example: “Avoided £400K in emergency air freight and spot buys due to dual sourcing.” ✍ Capture it: Keep a log of all potential emergency orders avoided + standard market rate for those buys. 4️⃣ Mitigation ROI 💡 Example: £1.2M avoided − £150K cost = 700% ROI. ✍ Capture it: Record direct costs of mitigation initiatives vs. the quantified financial impact avoided. 5️⃣ ESG & Regulatory Compliance Impact 💡 Example: “Avoided £850K in fines by enforcing modern slavery and environmental compliance checks.” ✍ Capture it: Record potential fines/sanctions linked to non-compliance and match to supplier audit results. 6️⃣ Scenario-Based Value Modelling 💡 Example: “Mitigation plan X reduces exposure to Supplier Y’s failure from £2.5M to £150K over 12 months.” ✍ Capture it: Build ‘what-if’ models with Finance, showing pre- and post-mitigation exposure. If you’re not tracking this, it’s not on your Procurement Value Report. If it’s not on the report, it’s invisible. If it’s invisible, someone else will take the credit. Use this in your next quarterly value reporting session with your CFO. Repost if this was helpful ♻️ What's the biggest risk to organisations right now? LMK in the comments 👇

Human error is not the cause… it’s the consequence. We often rush to blame people after incidents: “Why didn’t he follow the procedure?” “Why did she ignore the rule?” But modern safety science tells a different story: When unsafe behavior is repeated, the system "not the person" is usually at fault. Think of a work system that assumes: • The worker never gets tired • Never gets distracted • Always reads instructions • Always makes rational decisions That’s not a system, that’s a fantasy. In the real world? Fatigue, pressure, uncertainty, and repetition are always in play. Poorly designed systems create human error. Well-designed systems reduce the chances of it. Today’s safety thinking embraces the principle of “Designing for Human Error” building procedures and controls that: • Align with human limitations • Reduce complexity • Detect mistakes before they escalate Here’s the truth: Don’t overload the worker. Design the system to support them, not to test them. #SafetyScience #HumanFactors #SafetyByDesign #HSE #LeadershipInSafety #RiskEngineering #NEBOSH #SystemsThinking

Want to improve safety? Start by understanding people — not just procedures. In high-risk work environments, we often focus on systems, compliance, and controls. But it’s human factors that often decide whether things go right… or terribly wrong. Human factors in safety isn’t about blaming the person — it’s about understanding the person: What are they seeing, hearing, and feeling? Are they fatigued, rushed, or under pressure? Is the task designed for success, or primed for error? When we design work with human performance in mind, we move from: ❌ “Who made the mistake?” ✅ To: “What conditions set the stage for it?” Human factors means: Clear, intuitive procedures Fit-for-purpose tools and environments Mental workload and stress considered in planning Control room and field tasks aligned with real-world use Teams trained in decision-making under pressure Because safety isn’t just technical — it’s human. If we want fewer incidents, we need to understand the people doing the work. That’s how we design for safety, not just hope for it. #HumanFactors #SafetyCulture #HumanPerformance #WorkplaceSafety #HSE #SafetyLeadership #HumanCentredDesign #HighReliability #ErrorPrevention #OperationalExcellence