论文: 如何能在中国企业有效的运行PSM 作者: 杜邦中国安全管理 … · 版权@...

版权@ 2013 by E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. 杜邦公司保留所有的权利.

论文: 如何能在中国企业有效的运行 PSM

作者: 杜邦中国安全管理咨询资深顾问吴渝隆

Preface: 引言 Having been deeply involved, as a senior consultant, with the implementation of PSM in various industry and institute in China for the past 10+ years. It is not too difficult to make some observations and have reached a few conclusions which I am going to elaborate in the following paragraph. While it is almost equally important to share “technical knowhow or experience of PSM” with the audience, I find it difficult to evade from the topic of “proper management of PSM“. It is not easy for us to discuss subtle topics when we are working directly with our clients. Yet, CCPS forum provides a good opportunity for us to express deeper thoughts. Maybe, just maybe, someone will listen and will make some difference somehow. After all, it would all be useless and meaningless if we don’t want to have true and effective success in managing hazards and risks. 作为杜邦可持续解决方案部门的一名资深顾问，在过去的 10 多年间，我曾经帮助不同行业的多家公司实施过程安全管理，因此对于国内的过程安全管理的现状有着自己的观

察与思考，希望借助这次机会与大家分享。关于过程安全，技术方面的经验和诀窍虽然

非常重要，但是如果脱离了正确的管理，技术经验也就成了一盘散沙，无法凝聚成塔。

当我们与客户直接打交道时，有些微妙的话题无法尽述，希望借助 CCPS这一平台，能够更加全面更加深入地阐述杜邦的观点。归根结底，大家来到这里，不是为了务虚，而

是希望取得管理危害和风险的一些真经，如果在座的听众中有一两位能够从杜邦的发言

中获取一些启迪，那将是我们最大的快乐。 By using DuPont’s “Stages of PSM implementation” as the basic structure of this article, we can demonstrate several points (including issues or problems) with current practices. Please allow me to discuss details of each stage as presented below. 我将运用杜邦“过程安全管理的阶段论”作为这篇论文的基本架构，在对每个阶段的描

述中，我将同时联系国内现有过程安全管理的现状（包括管理的重点和问题），以下是

本文的全貌。 Main body: 本文 As the world is making rapid progress in science and industry; one strategy that many companies dealing with high hazardous matters are employing is the full integration of all assets and processes into a single management system. PSM has proved to be the only holistic and effective management system to ensure the safe operation of modern and sophisticated manufacturing facility. Companies can benefit from increased operational efficiency and realized reductions in fixed cost due to the decline or elimination accident or incident. 随着当今世界科学与技术的日新月异，企业的生产运营愈见现代化、复杂化。很多公司

应对高危工艺和物质的策略是将所有的设备及工艺融入一个单独的管理系统。PSM过程


安全管理是经过实践证明的最全面且有效的能够确保安全生产的管理系统。如果能够有

效实施，企业就能够提高运营效率，减少事件事故，降低固定成本。 PSM is developed as a result of many serious incidents around the world during the period of 1965 – 1980. Thru thorough investigation and analysis of various incidents, it was found that multiple means of protective measures are required to safe‐guard the integrity of an operating facility. As one the original developer and implementation of the PSM concept, DuPont is well experienced in all aspects of PSM application and utilization in industry. DuPont also understand not only the technical and mechanical side matters. There is much more to be well take‐cared of if true safety can be achieved thru all efforts. That’s the managerial side of the PSM fulfillment. The mentality and thought process behind the actions are more important than the tangible portion. There are several stages to follow in order to achieve effective implementation of PSM: 过程安全管理的概念在上个世纪 1965‐1980 年间伴随着全球许多重大安全事故而兴起。这些事故的表面原因可能多种多样，但是对事故进行系统化深入调查和分析的基础上，

可以发现，运营设施的完整性需要多重方法的安全保障。作为最早提出并实施过程安全

管理这一理念的公司，杜邦对于 PSM实施利用的各个方面有着独到的经验和理解。杜邦并且深刻地意识到，要想有良好的过程安全结果，仅仅做好工艺技术和机械设备工作

是不够的，还有很多其它问题需要综合考量，这就是 PSM 的管理要素。很多时候，管理行为背后的心态和思考模式比具象的物态更重要。从杜邦的角度，要想有效实施过程

安全管理，必须经历以下几个阶段。 Firstly, build and nurture a culture that will never compromise on safety Secondly, provide leadership commitment and demonstrate felt leadership in daily walk Thirdly, establish a comprehensive Process Safety and Risk Management Plan and System Fourthly, strengthen employees’ capability Fifthly, Operational Discipline is detrimental to ensure successful implementation of PSM 第一，在企业内培养对于安全毫不妥协的文化氛围；第二，领导层必须对于实现卓越的安全业绩有着坚实的承诺，并在日常的管理过程中

展现出有感领导；第三，制定出科学的工艺安全和风险管理实施计划及体系；第四，通过完善的机制加强员工能力建设；第五，操作纪律对于保证工艺安全管理系统的落实与执行至关重要。一． “Build and nurture Safety Culture” 在企业内培养不妥协安全的文化氛围； PSM are like seeds. It will flourish and grow if soil, water and nutrition are provided with properly and continuously. For PSM, a safety culture is like the soil, water and nutrition to a seed. One of the nutrition is a general concept in the mind of leaders that achieving production, cost, quality or schedule objectives without safety is NOT acceptable. Only when this state of mind among leaders is achieved, then it is time to begin the implementation of PSM. Otherwise, it would be too early. It would all be a pure waste of time and valuable resources. Nothing will be able to grow without a breeding ground. Baby need 9 months of


growing in Mother’s womb before it can be born in good health. Early born babies are usually weak and need extra care. Premature birth is not something to be proud or boasted with; instead it is a clear sign of insufficient preparation and readiness. Leaders may want to double check the rulers they are using to measure success with. It is not rocket science, but it does need some scientific knowledge and awareness of consequences. Don’t rush in to implementation of PSM before your organization is ready, it will not do you any good at all. 过程安全管理就像种子，如果空气、水和土壤营养等能够保证充分持续地供给，它就会

开花结果。对于 PSM来说，企业的安全文化就是种子生长须臾不可分的空气、水和土壤营养。这其中，一种很关键的营养要素是在管理者的心目中必须具备的基本认知，即

为了产量、成本、质量、交期等目标而牺牲安全是完全不可接受的。如果没有这样的认

知，PSM 的实施就会为时过早，强行推行只能是浪费时间和资源。任何事物的发育成长都需要有合适的场所，婴儿也要在母体里发育 9 个月后才能呱呱坠地，早产儿通常会因营养不良而羸弱不堪，需要额外照顾。任何事物的催熟早产都不是一件值得骄傲的事，

相反，它代表着准备工作的不完备。对于领导者而言，也许是时候再看一看自己用来衡

量结果成功与否的尺子。PSM虽然不是什么尖端的火箭科学，但是它也具有一定的技术含量，需要执行者懂得相关的后果。在组织做好准备之前，急于求成只会造成事倍功半。 1. It is most important to build a value for safety in the mind of people who operate the

facility. Or else it will be useless to ask them to conduct their daily routines in a safe and sound manner. Generally speaking, there usually exists a resistance or even resentment toward the implementation of safety. “Safety” is not been considered as part of people’s job or responsibility. Rather, safety is considered as additional work against their daily routines. Therefore it is treated as extra burden for the employees. They feel it is rather redundant to conduct Job Safety Analysis (JSA) because it requires additional time and efforts. So are the time and effort spent on following safety rules and regulations which require additional permits and processes before the actual high risk operations can began. If that is the case, people will find ways to get around the “mandatory requirement”. If management also “acknowledge” this kind of behavior. Then, it is useless to implement PSM. It is like throwing money into water. PSM or any other good Safety Management System will not be able to be successful within such a reject mode. Some leaders overestimated their influence on their subordinates. Especially true when there are many management layers in between. Their words or intent can be 180 degree reversely communicated if there are no solid verification actions as well as confirmation processes to follow‐up. 最重要的是在设备设施的操作人员心目中树立起绝对的安全价值观，否则指望他们

在日常操作中能够安全行事是无稽之谈。通常说来，在操作工层面对于安全工作普

遍有一种抵触情绪，（有时候甚至是憎恶）。“安全”对他们来说是与本职工作或责任

完全脱节的两件事，甚至是阻碍他们完成日常工作的额外要求和负担。他们认为进

行工作安全分析（JSA）是多此一举，浪费了他们的时间和精力。同理，遵循相关的安全规章制度，在高危作业正式开始之前申请各种许可，遵守各种流程也都是形式

主义。如果这代表大部分操作工的心态，那么他们会想方设法走捷径，规避各种强

制要求。而如果管理层对这样的现象睁一只眼闭一只眼，持默许纵容的态度，那么

实施 PSM就完全没有必要。过程安全管理或者其它任何安全管理系统在这种抵触的情绪下无法施行，强求只会让所有的投入打水漂。有些时候，有些领导者过分高估


自己对于下属的影响力，尤其当组织内层级过多时。如果没有通过领导的实际行动

来证实，没有相关的流程来落实，领导者的意思在向下传递时可能会被 180 度地翻转。

2. In some companies, “safety” had been handled just like slogans or another campaign.

Then it will definitely generate similar results as from other campaigns, nothing more. For leaders who don’t walk their talks, they really don’t have too much to expect. They will only ripe what they sow. It is important that the leaders understand what is PSM first. Then, they will be able to teach and lead. It is kind of ridiculous for those who don’t know PSM to lead those who know PSM, right? PSM can’t be executed or implemented with slogans. It is more important for the leaders to demonstrate “Felt Leadership” which is the basic building block for a desirable and satisfactory safety culture. 在一些公司，“安全”仅仅被当做口号或是一场运动，和其它运动一样，你不能指望

太多的成果。对于那些不能做到言行一致，以身作则的领导而言，他们播下什么样

的种子，就会收获什么样的果实。领导者清楚认知什么是 PSM至关重要，然后他们才有可能去教授，去领导。让不懂行的人来带领内行的人去实施 PSM，结果只能是南辕北辙了。PSM不是通过喊几句口号就能够实施的，领导必须展示出“有感领导”，让所有员工看得到、听得到、理解得了，这是建立安全文化的基础。

3. For some companies, leadership roles have a tendency to hide incidents/accidents. They are too afraid that surface of incidents will jeopardize their career or been regard as incompetent. Actually the entire management is having a totally incorrect mindset. They don’t know the best way to handle incident/accident is to face them directly. Pretending incident/accident do not exist or happened only provide a fake sense of safety. The senior managers are sitting on a time‐bomb with a fuse that can go off at any time. How can they sleep well at night? Knowing that you have no idea of what is going on. They must have very strong hearts. 有些公司里，领导层可能会倾向于瞒报事故。他们担心这些事故一旦浮出水面，会

影响自己的前途，为自己贴上管理无能的标签。这样的心态是完全错误的，管理层

应该意识到应对事故最好的方式就是直面事故。假装事故从未发生只能提供一种虚

假的安全感，事实上高层领导坐在了火药桶之上，引信都已点燃，随时可能爆炸。

这样的压力之下领导者一定会寝不安席。如果对于实际状况一无所知还能安然度日，

我们只能承认这些领导的心脏足够强大。 Incidents investigation and reports were not correctly executed. Reports were used as a venue for getting away from responsibility. Leadership has no interest to find out the truth, but keeping their eyes closed while people are making faults report. Very few reports can really uncover the true cause of incident, not to mention effective corrective actions. Re‐occurrence is for sure not a surprise. Leaders are like “King with new clothes” – from ancient fable. 没有进行正确的事故调查，报告是用来推诿责任的工具，领导者对于事实视而不见，

不去寻求事故的真实原因，而是默许别人伪造报告。这样的报告基本上无法查找事

故的根本原因，更遑论有效的整改措施。同类事故的再度发生不会让人讶异，这样

的领导就像是安徒生寓言里穿着新装的皇帝，自欺欺人罢了。


4. Corporate culture and core values (like ethics) can be vital to the effectiveness of PSM

implementation. If the actual actions can not reflect real event; eg: Data can’t reflect true situation in the field. Then, it is better to change the corporate culture first. Or else, it will all be in vain and just a waste of money and efforts. The real cause of failure is not PSM system itself；rather it is the failure of entire management of the corporate. For reference, DuPont has 4 core values: Safety and Health, Environmental Protection, Highest Ethical Standard, Respect People. With the support of the core values, DuPont is able to run an integrated safety management system effectively. Therefore, it is DuPont believe that safety management system will not work if core values are not established first. 公司的文化和核心价值（比如职业操守）对于 PSM的有效实施也是至关重要的。如果采取的行动与实际脱节，例如：数据不能反映现场的真实情况，那么很有必要先

来改变公司的文化氛围，否则浪费时间、金钱，最终只是徒劳无功。在这种情况下，

PSM 系统实施不能取得成功并不代表系统本身有问题，而是整个公司管理体系的脱轨。举例而言，杜邦有四大核心价值：安全和健康；环境保护；最高标准的职业操

守；尊重他人和平等待人。在这些核心价值的支持下，杜邦拥有全面有效的安全管

理体系。如果没有核心价值的支持，安全管理系统就不能发挥全然的效用。

5. All DuPont sites put “zero injury and zero incident” as their safety goal. Big or small, established or newly built, many sites have achieved “zero” goal consistently. Old factory can be just as good as a new one. Yet, I have seen leaders who don’t believe in “zero” goal. Instead, they believe “incident or accident” will happen, no matter what. They rather put blame on nature, weather, uncontrollable event, irresponsible employee or simply bad luck. PSM will not be able to help them much because they don’t believe what they can do or achieve it at all. It is rather funny to see some corporate safety goals like “3 production incidents and 5 traffic accidents”. How can an industry achieve world‐class performance when the leaders are “reactive instead of proactive”. 所有的杜邦工厂都把“零事故和零伤害”作为他们的安全目标之一。无论工厂的新

旧程度怎样，多数工厂都连续多年达到了这个目标。许多的老工厂一样可以取得和

新工厂同样优异的安全业绩。但是在日常和客户打交道的过程中，我发现很多领导

并不真心相信“一切事故和伤害都可以避免”，他们觉得总有一些事故会发生，天灾

人祸，很多事件不是人力可以控制，或者员工总有不负责任的那一刻，运气差了，

喝凉水都会塞牙。在这种心态下，他们不会全然相信 PSM 的作用，PSM因而也不可能为他们发挥全然的作用。从杜邦的角度，类似“一年 3 起生产事故、5 起交通事故”之类的安全目标是不可取的，如果领导人对于安全没有绝对信心，被动应付了

事，那么这样的企业不可能取得世界一流的成绩。

6. One of the best experience from my past 30 plus years is too “listen”. Leadership can be more effective if they are also good listeners. If leaders are willing to go to the field and chat with people about their work and concerns, a lot of things can be revealed automatically. Yet, most managers only like to spend time listen to reports in the comfort of a conference rooms knowing some of those stuff may not be all true. How can you expect progress if you yourself are too lazy to take further actions to verify?


过去的 30 年间，我对于安全管理最重要的心得就是“倾听”。领导层如果善于倾听，他们的管理就会更有成效。我们鼓励领导者多去一线，与现场的员工一起认真讨论

他们的日常工作及顾虑，那么很多潜在的问题就会暴露出来，可以采取预防措施。

可实际情况是，很多领导满足于在办公室里听取汇报，尽管他们也知道报告的内容

会有水分。如果作为领导，不能做到兼听则明，这样的领导无法成为高效的领导。二领导层必须对于实现卓越的安全业绩有着坚实的承诺，并展现有感领导；“ Provide leadership’s commitment and felt‐leadership”

Executives in the top management level do not have a full and in depth understanding

of Safety Culture and its influences. Senior leaders consider safety as another “corporate objectives” which can be easily achieved by mentioning “safety” in their speeches or set it up as KPI’s. To them, safety is just a decoration, so there is no need to spend time to understand it further. In short, there is no value for safety among some senior leadership. They have this concept (low or no value for safety) because their boss is the same. As we have mentioned in the beginning of this article. Safety management has become so complicated that it requires professional understanding and measures to be effective and successful. Safety has long been greatly misunderstood and underestimated due to the lack of value for it.

公司的高层领导对于安全文化和它的影响力必须有足够充分和深入的了解。如果高

层领导将安全当成一项任务指标，认为平时讲话里多提提安全、设定相应的安全绩效指

标就足够的话，对于公司的安全管理将不能起到实质的作用。这些领导把安全当成一种

装饰品，不打算真正花心思去理解，安全交给安全部门管理就好，这种观念在管理层中

会层层向下传递，最终导致整个企业对安全工作的口头重视，实际忽视。安全管理在现

代的运营环境中日趋复杂化，它需要专业的理解和工具来帮助更有效成功地实施。长期

以来，轻视安全的价值使得很多领导对安全管理也缺乏正确理解的动力。 Senior leaders are busy, so they usually delegate SAFETY responsibilities down to Safety People. They usually overlooked the essence that “you can delegate authority all the time, but you can never delegate responsibility”. Anything went wrong in an organization is ultimately the responsibility of the top leader. It is not rare to see some of these safety responsibilities been delegated; such as leading a safety meeting, or conducting a safety audit. It sends out a clear message “Safety is not my priority or concern”. Then, the entire organization realizes the leaders don’t really mean it when they say safety is important. Their silent behavior and body language have said the absolute contrary. If safety is just for show and is just skin deep, it will not be able to support the complicated and sophisticated operation of PSM. It takes a lot of commitment and contribution. 高层领导一般都是非常忙碌的，他们将安全责任交付给安全人员。在这种时候，他们通

常忘记了“你可以下放权力，但是你永远不能下放责任”。组织中任何可能的失误最终

都要由最高领导层来背负责任。我们在日常工作中经常能看到安全职责的下放，比如说

委托安全人员来组织一次安全会议，或是执行一次安全检查。这样的举动无形中传递的

信号就是“安全不是我的关注重点”。可以想象，当整个组织接收到这样的信号，他们

很明白领导者嘴上说一套，他们的实际行动传递的是另一套。如果安全只是用来肤浅地

作秀，它无法支撑起复杂的 PSM管理，PSM需要的是真切的承诺和努力。


In fact, it takes more than “felt leadership” to establish effective Safety Culture. There are several things which are equally important to consider. First, we need Professional people to resolve technical or difficult problems. That’s why leader of this country strongly recommend its people to have “scientific vision” when handling business or decisions. Professional matters need to be handled by professional people in a professional manner. Leaders are usually too busy or too occupied to work on complicated matters. So, it will be more effective if several comprehensive alternatives were provided for him to make judgment or decision. Some senior leaders may be too confident about own capabilities. And decisions were sometimes made without full consideration; for example, a tragedy happened when an employee was dragged and choked to death when the bag and strap he was carrying over his shoulder got caught by rotating machinery. For the protection against potential toxic gas release, all employees were required to carry an emergency gas mask in a bag all the time when entering the process area. The counter measure is to change the way employees carrying the bag. They are requested to carry the bag side way. In no time can they carry the bag across the shoulder. It is a common knowledge and sense to carry a bag across our shoulder which is much safer and stabber than only on one shoulder. It may cause other potential incident due to added variable of instability. 事实上，要想建设安全文化，仅仅依靠“有感领导”是不够的，还有几项其它的因素必

须放在同等重要的位置上来考量。首先，我们需要专业人员来解决技术性或其它棘手的

问题，我想中国领导人一再强调“科学发展观”背后的原因与此如出一辙。专业性的问

题需要专业人员以专业的手段来解决，一味依靠领导是不可取的，他们通常太忙而无暇

研究复杂的专业性问题，这时候，如果有专业人士为他们提供几种全面而有效的方案供

其选择或最后拍板，问题的解决会高效得多。有些高层领导也许过于自信而自负，他们

的一个毛病就是有时过于相信自己的判断而不能做出全面通盘的考量。举一个悲剧的例

子，搬运工在搬送物品时包裹和带子被旋转刀具带倒，搬运工旋即摔倒，因为有毒物质

的泄漏而窒息死亡。为了预防未来潜在的有毒气体泄漏造成同样的事故，工厂要求所有

的员工在进入工艺区域时都必须携带应急防毒面具。而事实上，这起事故更加可行的纠

偏方案是改变员工搬运物品的方式。以前员工被要求用单肩扛的方式来搬运包裹，而大

家都知道用双肩的方式来扛物品比单肩更安全和踏实。单肩所导致的不稳定性大大地增

强了潜在事故的可能性。 In many companies, safety related management system and measures have been divided into many steps, processes which are owned by different departments. And safety responsibilities have been assigned to one or multiple personnel who haven’t been professionally trained to accomplish those tasks. Without appropriate division of safety responsibilities, you can hardly expect safety performance to turn good automatically. DuPont deploys a “RACI” system to clearly outline the roles and responsibilities within one organization. This is a very powerful tool to assign safety responsibilities in a rational and reasonable way. Another gap in PSM implementation can be found with senior leaders of non‐process or non‐technical related departments such as Finance, Accounting, General Service or even Purchasing and planning, etc. Traditionally, those departments only take care of its own responsibilities with a very limited or restricted understanding for overall success. They tend to put performance and achievement of their own department well over the


success of entire organization. There is a huge shortage of collaboration and cooperation spirit among different functions to strive for the ultimate accomplishment of the whole company. The degree of understanding on PSM elements among senior leaders for those mentioned functions/department can be best described as “poor to none”. Within such an environment, how can you expect PSM to be fully supported and executed? Sometimes I have seen PSM related efforts were compromised by non‐technical reasons. Inherent Safety items were removed from a project at planning and engineering stage simply because there is not enough funding – or if you will: projects been accepted and approved because of its low enough cost. Functional department only serve as a relay of orders and instructions from senior leaders down to the organizations below. Their only function is to assess performance of all production and maintenance departments. They don’t provide adequate support or useful advice. They did not help much with the PSM implementation. Yet, they may become the barrier sometimes. 现有的安全管理制度与措施被分成许多步骤并由不同的部门共同管理。。安全职责被分

给组织中一个或多个并未完整接受专业安全培训的人员。安全职责没有明确的分配给哪

个部门或個人负责。责任不清时，安全业绩不会自动变“好”。杜邦采用“职责分配表

体系”来明细组织内的责任和职责，对合理分配组织内的职责非常有用。 PSM实施过程中另一块常见的短板存在于非工艺技术相关部门，如财务、会计、后勤、甚至是采购

和计划管理部门的高层领导中。传统上，这些部门的领导者通常本位主义严重，只关心

自身部门的绩效，而没有着眼于整个组织的成功。不同职能部门之间协同合作的精神缺

失，大家不能够劲往一处使，共同致力于组织目标的实现，而是铁路警察，各管一截。

这些部门的领导对于 PSM的理解近于无知，在这样的组织氛围中，PSM的实施不可能得到所必需的支持。我看到过很多次，因为非技术的原因，导致 PSM 活动不能够顺利完成。例如很多投资项目在计划可研和工程设计阶段必须实施的内在关联安全分析评估

被取消，因为资金紧缺；或者是安全上打了折扣的项目因为费用足够低被接受和批准。

职能部门这时候仅仅充当公司最高层指示向下传递的传声筒，他们唯一的职能就是对所

有生产管理部门的业绩结果进行评判，而不是提供过程中的支持和建议帮助，这样的职

能部门完全无法为 PSM 有效实施提供任何助力，相反，很多时候，他们是一种掣肘。

Once I identified a senior leader, without too much trouble, from a crowd of 100+ people walking in the construction site of a new process facility. How? It is easy. Even when I can barely see his figure from a distance, I can clearly see he did not wear a safety hat while the rest the crowd all wear hard hats. This is something a “true leader” will never do. What is the message sent to the rest of the employees? If I am a high rank leader, then, I don’t have to follow rules and regulations? I am an exception because I have high rank. Rules and regulations are only for average employees, managers don’t have to follow them. People tend to interpret their own status, in the absence of other senior people; even a line supervisor may think he is senior enough that he does not need to obey regulations. 曾有一次，我在一个工程建设项目的现场，从上百人很容易地就认出他们的大领导了。

怎么认？很简单，就算我远远地看不清楚他的脸，我能看到当周围所有人都戴着安全帽

时，他是唯一一位头上光光的人。一位真正的言行一致的领导绝不会做这样的事。他给

他的员工带去了怎样的信息？我是一位高阶领导，我可以不遵守规章制度？我因为位高

权重就可以例外？安全规章制度只是对付基层员工的，管理层可以免疫？如果是这样，

就不要责怪普通员工会对规则做出自己的理解和解释。如果现场没有更高一级的领导，


那么一名班长也可以把自己当成领导从而豁免自己遵章守纪的责任。 Tolerance of inadequate systems and resources occurs when it becomes acceptable or taken‐for‐grant to work with inadequate systems and resources, which often occurs when the organization tries to do too much with too little. No allowance or contingency is made in business and operational planning for unanticipated problems and changing conditions. The organization will be slow to react to changing conditions if Emergency Preparation and Response is not well organized and tested. Most attempts to make the operation safer through enhanced systems and resources ONLY happen following an incident or regulatory action. There is a pervasive belief that organizational success or survival is dependent upon making do with what is available Most companies are stretching human and financial resources in order to “manage” costs And Safety is managed by tradition in a reactive mode rather than proactive. 对于不合适系统和不合格资源的容忍也是一个大问题。很多时候，当组织没有足够的资

源来完成自己所希望的任务时，会出现员工能力、管理系统与要求不匹配。如果对此习

以为常，欣然接受，那就是对于劣质的容忍。在业务或运营计划中没有为出乎意料的问

题和变化的环境预留任何的缓冲和应急空间。如果没有组织良好和不断检验的应急响应

系统，那么当变化和问题到来时，组织的反应速度会是非常缓慢。总是要事故过后经历

血的教训或是国家强制法律法规才会让有些企业去采取措施，建设系统，加强投入，帮

助生产环节更加安全。普遍存在的一种观点是组织的生存或成功依赖于现有资源的充分

利用。绝大多数公司强调的是如何利用有限的人力和财务资源来实现尽可能多的产出。

安全在这种时候是一种被动的成本，而不是主动的投入。第三，制定出科学的工艺安全和风险管理实施计划及体系； “Establish a comprehensive Process Safety and Risk Management Plan and System”

PSM is an integrated system by all 14 elements. It is not just a combination of individual

elements. In fact, all elements are inter‐connected together so they function as a comprehensive network to provide protection and prevention against potential incident or accidents. In addition to the specific features of each element, there is a portion of the element which outlined the interface and relationship among different elements. If those interfaces were weakly built, then each related elements will be equally weakened. Hence the overall strength of PSM will be greatly reduced. There are people who think the PSM elements are easy to do. But, very often they fail to capture the true intent of each element and the related importance of interfaces. There are several bigger defects in current PSM implementation. Firstly, it is the lack of seamlessness integration and true union of elements. PSM elements were assigned to be handled by different functional units. In turn, the responsibilities are also divided onto different functional units. The result is everyone goes his own way. There is no true integration in most company or enterprise. So, the effectiveness of PSM is greatly reduced. The sectional management can sometimes create conflicting effect that cancel out two initiatives with same objectives. Those phenomena are commonly called “sectionalism”.

过程安全管理 PSM 是包含 14 个管理要素的一套全面的整合的管理体系。这些要素不是简单的叠加。事实上，所有的要素都包含内在联系，它们有机结合，相互作用，共


同组成一张全面的安全网，来预防潜在事故的发生，并提供有效的保护屏障。14 个要素每个要素除了自身的特点之外，还有很大一部分是与其它要素的接口及融合。如果接

口没有建好，那么相关的要素都不可能发挥全部的效用，整个系统的效果也会被极大地

削减。有人认为 PSM 按照要素一样样去做就好了，很简单，但是他们忘记了这是一个整体的系统。我观察到很多企业 PSM 的实施有些比较明显的问题，其中第一项就是要素之间的无缝对接和整合。如果不同的要素分配给不同的部门去执行，那么职责归位也

各不相同，结果就是各自为政。名义上的管理系统有了，实际效果则差强人意，甚至有

时候还会出现内部打架的情况，这种现象通常称之为“本位主义”，我想大家都不陌生。

Secondarily, all PSM related activities should fully start prior to the formal design stage. PSM is an integrated combination of activities like planning, engineering, design、purchasing、 constructing till start up and normal operation. For example, “Quality Assurance” is an element to provide comprehensive quality control process, technology, methodology, management standard and regulations so as to help organization manage equipment quality and construction quality, from the design stage through purchasing, construction to normal operation and finally to asset retirement. On the other hand, “mechanical integrity” element provides the right process, technology and tools to ensure all the process related equipment and controlling instrument in a “desirable and safe operation condition”. The two elements are closely related and shall support each other. And to ensure successful implementation of those two elements, we will count on the complete Process Technology Information. If there is inadequate information or lack of information due to laggard document management, such as the missing of original design document, then PT cannot provide sufficient support and reference for other elements. The design, purchase and construction quality of old equipment usually cannot compete with that for new facility. And Process control system on old facilities cannot compare to the modern DCS. Even the design standard is not as strict as of today. So many quality control works on old process equipment is non‐satisfactory according to current standard. Thus it is very important to take an overall check on all the running equipment to identify gaps in current management system and control process. Improvement measures shall be taken immediately. Some companies only select and implement a few of the PSM elements which they think is important to Safety Management. This approach has been proved to be a waste of time and efforts. If some of the elements were not implemented at the same time. It is obviously that the effects of PSM integration will not be realized. Eventually, people will think PSM can’t produce great result. If fact, it is only because of ignorance or the lack of a true understanding of PSM implementation. On the other hand, leaders do nothing in PSM until their facility and its operation become plagued with various problems and issues. To be frank, it is already too late when you realize there is a problem. Without the ability to foresee issues and take preventive measures, it is not true management at all. It is desired to be able to have a full understanding of current safety management system. Then, organize effective mechanism to analyze and understand trend to be able to foresee safety issues that we can warn senior leaders to take effective prevention/mitigation measures. If measures are appropriate，we can ensure safety in a rational and reasonable way.

其次，PSM 工作在正式的设计工作前就全面开展。PSM 是贯穿计划、工程、设计、采购、建设直至开车和正常运营工作全流程的管理。比如，“质量保证要素”从设计、


采购和施工阶段，持续至正常运营阶段提供全面的“质量控制工艺、技术、方法和管理

标准与制度”，有效的帮助公司管理设备质量和建设质量。另一方面，“机械完整性”提

供工艺，技术和技巧，使所有工艺相关的设备/控制仪器处于“理想而安全的操作状况”。两个要素之间有紧密的关连且相互支持。上述两个要素的成功关键又依赖完整的工艺信

息由于信息不足或落后的文件管理系统，有时甚至连基本的设计数据都无法查出以供参考。旧有装置的设计/采购/工程质量一般比不上新建的装置。老旧设备上的工艺控制系统和仪器也无法和现代集散控制系统 DCS 控制相比。过去的设计标准也不像现在那么严格，所以工艺设备的质量与控制未达到应有的标准。所以应对目前现有的设施进行

全面地调查，进而识别目前管理体系和控制过程中存在的缺陷，并尽快采取改进措施。

有些公司仅仅选取几个自认为对于安全最重要的要素来实施，通常是浪费金钱和时间。

如果要素没有全面综合实施，PSM 的整体效果是无法体现的。这时候，人们通常会指责PSM 无用，事实上，这源于他们自身的无知。另一方面，如果管理者在出事之前对于PSM无动于衷也是大问题，坦白来说，当你发现有问题时，通常都为时已晚。不具备预测和预防问题能力的管理都不能称之为好的管理。我们需要对现有的安全管理系统有足

够的了解，接下来通过有效的机制分析、掌握趋势和预测来提醒/警告高层来对即将出现的安全问题采取措施。如果预防预测的措施采取得当，安全是完全可以合理而有效地

受控。

Thirdly, PSM implementations should be lead and conducted by fully trained professionals. A commonly found flaw in current organization culture is “Leader knows all or Leader knows best” which is in fact not always true. If non‐professional is leading professionals, you cannot hold too high expectations on the result. Without proper trained leader or a fully integrated organizational platform, implementation of PSM is just a demonstration of “Consequence of lack of scientific development vision”. Very few people dare to point out the apparent futility. Hence the waste of resources drags on. Few leaders being able to realize the main deficiency is in fact themselves – the concept and understanding toward PSM implementation is not accurate from the beginning. More than once I have heard senior leaders talked about Quality Assurance in terms of the laboratory tests. They did not even know “the applications of QA” is mainly focused on facilities. A lot of issue with PSM implementation can be traced back to “wrong interpretation” of terms, definitions and applications.

第三，PSM 实施必须由受过完整训练的专业人员来领导和执行。很多企业流行的哲学是“领导是万能的，什么都懂”,这句话谬之大矣。如果外行领导内行，结果可想而知。缺乏专业的 PSM领导或整合的组织平台，PSM 的实施就会应证缺乏“科学发展观”指导的后果。但是通常没人敢直指皇帝的新装，资源的浪费也就不可避免。很少有领导意

识到实施 PSM最大的障碍就是他们自己，从一开始概念和理解就错了。我不只一次听到很多领导提到质量保证时将其等同于实验室的测试，他们不知道质量保证的应用应该

着眼于设备设施本身。PSM实施中很多问题其实是对于一些名词、定义和应用的错误理解而导致的。

Fourthly, basic PSM elements and standards are not fully applicable or operational to all

levels or functions within a manufacturing facility. To begin with, the leadership should have a fully understanding of all PSM elements and standards. Then, they are able to establish second or third layers PSM rules and procedures which are more suitable toward operations


of respective units or functions at different level. The lack of 2nd or 3rd layer PSM guidance or instruction is the common cause to failure of PSM implementation. It can also be identified if “effectiveness of training” is truly traced and evaluated. Most of the training evaluations were no more than a stack of paper records. No one is paying much attention to the effectiveness of PSM training sessions. It does no good to any organization if the goal is to “complete 100 PSM training sessions with 1000 employees”. “Numbers” can’t be translated into true understanding at all. Unfortunately that is the true reflection of situation in current time.

第四，在一家工厂内基础 PSM要素和标准并非对所有层级的职能都适用。领导者首先要学习了解 PSM的要素和标准，然后他们要能够制定出第二层或第三层的 PSM 规则和程序，以适应不同层次的运营和各种职能部门所需。如果缺乏第二或第三层的实施细

则，PSM 通常也会失败。还有，PSM培训的有效性是否得到评估也很重要。大部分培训评估表就是一摞纸头，没有人真心关注培训是否达到了预期的目的。对组织来说，完成

面向 1000 名员工的 100 次 PSM培训其实是一个无效指标，数字本身不能保证质量，但悲哀的是，大多数人首先关注的还是完成的数量。

Fifthly, there is little or no effort to identify true root causes of incident or accident.

Incident reporting for some enterprise is just an act of cover‐up. I have rarely seen the causes been directed toward managerial or management’s errors or deficiencies. Most of the incident reports are very well written. But, it is meaningless if the corrective actions can’t really prevent similar incidents to happen again. How can corrective actions be effective when the truth is not yet uncovered? On the other side, most of the incidents or accidents can be traced back to failure of execution in one or more PSM elements. The gap will remain to be gap if it is not identified and corrective measures taken in a timely manner. That’s what we commonly see in the field, many repeated incidents or accidents continue to occur again and again. And senior managers tend to blame the PSM system instead of finding causes within their own leadership and management. I guess it is easier to point the fingers out to others. We can all easily see other’s failure while ignoring own defects. The lack of effective audit/inspection system is the main reason why some organizations don’t have the ability to uncover issues or risk by themselves in advance. A false impression or wrong self‐perception on safety can be highly shaky to the sustainability of a company.

第五，缺乏去寻找事故事件根本原因的动力和努力。有些企业的事故调查报告是用

来寻找借口，掩盖真相的。我很少看到事故调查发现的原因指向管理层的问题和缺点。

当然绝大部分的事故报告措辞精心，但如果事故调查和纠偏措施不能够帮助预防同类事

故的再度发生，它又有多大意义呢？而如果事故的真相都不被揭露，又怎能指望纠偏措

施是到位有效的？另一方面，大量的工艺安全事故都能够追溯到一项或多项 PSM 要素实施的不到位。短板永远是短板，如果它不能够被识别并被纠正。这是为什么在现场我

们能看到一起又一起事故重复发生。高管们苛责 PSM 系统，而不是从自身寻找原因，批评别人永远比自我批评来得容易。易见他人瓦上霜，不扫自家门前雪。缺乏有效的审

核检查体系是一些公司无法识别自身风险和问题的主要原因。如果自我感觉过于良好，

对于安全太过自信，又缺乏有效的监督，那么公司的可持续性其实是大打折扣的。 Sixthly, for a process facility, there is a long journey involved from birth to grave,

including stages from planning, designing, engineering, procurement, construction,


inspection, turn‐over, test‐run until normal operation. Every stage should be fully inter‐connected so the net output from previous stage is completely transferred as input to the next stage. It sounds easy but in fact all details should be closely followed systematically in order to ensure the hand‐over process is thorough. Without proper knowledge of the functionality each stage, the hand‐over process can’t be achieve and there will be many missing links which will lead to defects or deficiencies eventually. The existing organization hierarchy and structure tends to cut the entire process into many smaller sections or even pieces. The smooth transfer of knowledge, information and progress from stage to stage can’t be guaranteed without a clearly defined interface mechanism. In fact, the interface mechanism is not in existence at all. The planning function only cares about budget and basic feasibility of process; while the procurement and construction function care more about cost than any other thing. So, when the design or engineering function wants to put in inherent safe equipment, there is a cost‐cap to restrict the application.

第六，对于任何工艺设备来说，它从“诞生”到“坟墓”要经历很长的过程，有计

划、设计、工程、采购、建设、检查、移交、试生产乃至正常生产到最终设备报废等各

个阶段。每一个阶段之间都是环环相扣的，才能保证上一阶段的输出能够完全成为下一

阶段的有效输入。这是知易行难的一件事，其间各种各样的细节都必须系统性统筹管理

才能保证对下一阶段的移交是彻底的。如果对于每一个阶段的功能没有正确的理解，那

么移交就不可能顺利完成，这里那里总会有些疏漏，为未来带来无尽的烦恼。现在很多

组织内的层级架构安排试图将整个工艺设备全生命周期的管理分成各自为政的很多部

分，这是不可取的。如果没有清晰界定的沟通交互关联机制，各个阶段之间的知识、信

息的顺畅传递和阶段到阶段的进步就不可能得到保证。事实上，很多公司的各个阶段之

间是完全脱节的，计划部门只关注预算和工艺的基本可行性，采购和建设部门关心的是

成本控制。在这样的大前提下，如果设计和工程部门想加入保障内在安全的设计和设备

时，他们常常会受到成本的制约。

Seventhly, there is a lack of effective “hazard recognition and control system”. Though some organization has a nominal “hazard recognition and control system”, but most of the PHA reports coming from the system don’t bear the necessary breadth and depth, some are done by external third party who might not have the best knowledge of the process. Thus not all the hazards can be identified, and there is no close loop management of the identified hazards. So this is like scratching an itch from outside one’s boots and will never touch the core or critical issues. And the potential mistakes or poor judgments made by operators are not well identified in PHA or JSA. There are believes once people are well trained, they can be very reliable and effective. Experienced people all know this is not true. The most effective safety protection measure is “automatic machine”. Therefore, in addition to physical equipment, it is equally important to identify potential risk from Human Factors side, such as whether rules and procedures followed. So many current PSM systems have gaps and defects. Human factor is another reason that corrective measures are not fully executed. On the other hand, change management might not be effective all the time, this leads to out of control of the hazards incurred by the change. Such hazards can cause incidents any time. And over‐dependence on operators is another contributor to incidents. People is not as reliable as “physical equipment”. The old factory and new factories with more cost concern tend to use less “automatic machine”, this results in higher inherent risk.


第七，没有有效的“危害识别和控制体系”。虽然已有一些“危害识别和控制体系”。然而大部分工艺危害分析报告 PHA 的深度与广度的是不足的，不少报告是花钱请外人做的不能完整找出危害也没有形成闭环管理。像是隔靴搔痒无法触及核心或关键问

题。同时工艺危害分析和工作安全分析中也没能列出操作工人可能会犯的错误。大家似

乎相信只要经过适当的培训，任何操作工人都会非常稳定及可靠。而有经验的人知道这

样的信条是非常不靠谱的。有效的安全防护措施就是“自动防护设备”。在设备之外，

我们同样考虑人的因素，比如是不是真正遵章守纪。所以，现有工艺安全管理体系的确

存在偏差与缺陷。人的因素可能导致改进措施并没有确实实施和执行。另一方面，现有

的变更管理不是特别有效，因此变更所产生的危害没有被合理的管理/控制，这些隐患随时有可能导致事故。另一方面太过相信依靠操作人员。但是事实上人不如“实质设

备”一样可靠。“自动防护设备”用得较少，是老厂或想省钱的新厂风险相对更高的理

由之一。 Common to all companies, one of the weakest links in PSM implementation is “Contractors Management”. For various reasons, Many companies are utilize contract labors for critical activities on site, including operation and maintenance. Without proper management, this is the biggest threat to facility safety. Many past incidents or accidents fell into this category. It is something very difficult for me to understand the fact that though contractors and formal employees are working in the same hazardous area, yet there is big difference regarding safety awareness, training received and self‐discipline between those two groups. They can cause catastrophic tragedy. There are leaders who have special relationship with those contractors and are taking obstructive actions toward the administrative actions on contractors. (In some situation, contractors were used as scapegoat for the industry when there is an incident/accident. They got compensated later on with more contracts. ) It seems that the contractors are immune to rules and regulations. Their equipment are broken and inadequate, their protective gears are not effective. Without an effective management process to control, select, screen, manage, audit, check, and eliminate contractors, it is really hard to control risk and hazard. Contractors will be like a bomb that is going to explode any time and cause unbearable loss to the company. More than once, I inspected the toxic gas mask the contractors are using. It is a shame that none of the masks meet the minimum requirement. The filters used were not suitable for the potential gas release at that site. The contractors did not know this, so they will continue to wear those unfit gas masks. They don’t know the mask will not be able to offer them any protection. What would you think if you or your people were treated in this manner? 几乎所有公司众口一词，都会认为承包商管理是所有 PSM 工作中最薄弱的一环。现代公司因为这样那样的原因，在现场大量使用承包商来进行包括生产操作和维护保养这样

重要的工作。如果缺乏有效的管理，承包商将对工厂的安全构成重大的事故隐患。太多

过往的事故和承包商有关。有时候对于我这样的安全专业人士来说很难理解为什么承包

商和正式员工一样在高危险区域工作，但是他们的“安全意识、培训和纪律”的水平要

差很多。这种差距能够导致灾难性的事故发生。有时候，工厂的领导与承包商之间有着

千丝万缕的特殊联系，想要加强对于承包商的监管面临着来自领导的种种阻力。（某些

情况下，承包商成了事故中的替罪羊，他们会在事后通过新的合同得到补偿）。承包商

某些时候对于规章制度是免疫的，他们使用受损的不合格机器设备，他们不穿戴任何个

人防护设备。如果没有有效的管理程序来有效控制、选择、筛选、管理、审核、检查、


淘汰承包商，风险与危害就无法受控他们就像一颗随时可能爆炸的炸弹。造成公司的

重大损失。我曾经不止一次检查过承包商所使用的防毒面具，我必须承认没有一次这些面具是合格的。通常的问题出在所使用的滤芯与现场可能泄露的毒气不匹配，而承包

商员工大多对此一无所知，他们继续佩戴这种防毒面具，完全没有意识到一旦紧急情况

发生，这些面具不能为他们提供任何保护。试想一下，如果是你或者你的团队人员处在

这样的状况下，你会怎么想？ Lastly but not the least, project time is cut short for various non‐scientific, non‐technical or non‐safety related reasons. In order to complete the project before the date selected by senior leader, there are many ways to cut the corners (take short cut). No one really cares about the quality of construction or inspection. There is a joke about as this situation: As soon as we completed PSSR, the facility owner will get a long list of works and jobs, for which additional efforts are required, some item can be urgent and serious in nature. How can you expect a facility to be safe and sound when it is congenitally deficient and acquire bad management system? How can the field crew have time to make improvement when there are many “fire ‐fighting items” to keep them busy and occupied? 最后，当然也仍然是非常重要的一点，项目的实施时间由于种种非科学、非技术、非安全的原因被想当然地缩短，为了在某位高层领导选定的日期之前完工，人们总是能

发现很多捷径可走。没人真正关心项目建设的质量并去进行相应检查。关于这种状态的

描述，听起来像个笑话：我们刚完成启动前安全检查，厂长就又给了一长串的工作要做，

那又需要额外的努力，有些事还挺着急也挺麻烦。当一个工厂先天不足，后天又失调时，

你怎么能期待它保证安全生产？工厂的员工天天都必须要去“救火”时，他们又哪儿来

的时间能去仔细考量如何改进？

第四，通过完善的机制加强员工能力建设；“Strengthen employee’s capability ”

First, there need to be enough knowledge among the senior leaders to support PSM related decisions. How can you lead if you don’t know how to do it by yourself? How can you tell if your people are doing the right thing or doing things right? It’s like to lead a group by a blind person. A general understanding on PSM plus an open mind can generate surprising result. Leaders should learn to lead by setting examples or conducting demonstration. Many leaders don’t really understand PSM or the related PSM elements. Yet, they are talking about PSM loudly in public based on their limited knowledge or even some skewed perception. “Knowledge is Power” is not highly valued among some senior leaders. They tend to believe that “Seniority is Power”. How can you expect them to lead the organization to move to the right direction and make the right decision when there is no true knowledge or experience in PSM to support all that. A senior drilling leader openly declared that PSM is useless in “all drilling related operations and activities”. This comment only revealed how little he knew about PSM, maybe none. And you can also get an accurate estimate on the extent PSM can help his team and operations with– very little.

首先，我们需要加强对于高层领导的培训辅导以确保他们掌握 PSM相关的知识并能够支持 PSM的相关决定。如果自己都不懂，那么你怎么能够领导别人？怎么能够知道你的团队是否在做正确的事？用正确的方法？那就像盲人骑瞎马。有时候，如果领导

具备 PSM的基本知识，又有开明包容的心态，所产生的结果就会完全不同。领导者必


须学会以身作则。很多领导对于 PSM只知皮毛，就敢基于他们有限的甚至不完全正确的理解在公共场合对于 PSM指手画脚。“知识就是力量”对于这些领导不适用，他们更相信“头衔就是力量”。这样的领导，怎么能指望他们带领组织走上正确的道路并做出

正确的决定。我曾经见到一位钻井公司高管宣扬在钻井相关的所有作业活动中，PSM无用论。这样的言论只能反映出他对于 PSM的无知，也许无知者无畏吧，但同时，你一定也能精准地估计出 PSM对于他的钻井队大约确实是起不到任何效果的。

Secondly, it is a must to establish effective “Audit Process and Protocol” to monitor all

phase of PSM implementation with all the involved units and activities. Some of the short‐comings found from Audits are:

其次，必须制定有效的“审核程序和规定”来监督 PSM实施各个阶段中各相关部门和活动。而审核中一些常见的问题包括：

a. Auditors are not well experienced or trained to uncover the true issue or defect. 审核员没有经验或是培训不足，以至于不能够发现问题和缺陷

b. Issues or defects found are not traced back to broken‐links in management. 发现的问题和缺陷不能够追溯回管理的疏失环节

c. Issues or defects are not well summarized and analyzed to provide accurate recommendations or corrective actions for leadership. 没有做好发现问题和缺陷的总结分析，因而也不能为领导层提供有针对性的正

确改进建议和纠偏方案 d. Corrective actions are too simple and superficial. Most of the corrective actions only

address the issue on the surface. For example, for “not wearing hard hat” is to “Put on hard hat”. There is no effort or intent to fix the underlying issue “why not wearing hard hat?” 纠偏行动太过简单化，浮于表面。很多改进措施只是试图解决面上的问题，例

如发现“员工没有戴安全帽”就要求“戴上安全帽”，而不是花功夫去解决更深

层次的问题“员工为什么不戴安全帽？” e. The PDCA loop is not well closed. The effort spent to verify whether “corrective

actions” were truly implemented is little. So, the defects continue to happen over and over again. PDCA（计划、实施、检查、处理）没有形成闭环循环，大家没花什么精力去核实“纠偏行动”是否真正得到了落实，所以问题也就一而再，再而三地出现。

f. In summary, leaders don’t know how to effectively use PSM tools to accomplish their intended objectives – one of the reasons is simply because they themselves don’t join the PSM training sessions at all. 总结而言，领导们还没有学会如何有效使用 PSM工具来帮助自己实现目标，而其中原因之一就是他们从来没有参加过任何 PSM的培训课程。

Thirdly, the fundamental idea is that more knowledge leaders have about PSM, higher the level of PSM comprehension with employees. This is not magic. Who would like to look ignorant about PSM when their leaders have a lot of knowledge about PSM? This is so called “lead by setting example”. You don’t even have to say it repeatedly. People can catch the message loudly and clearly when they saw you practice it routinely. Employees will automatically make PSM their priority in work. Unfortunately most bosses are too busy to


learn a thing or two about PSM. They regard PSM to be another simple framework for HSE implementation. So, they can get by just the same as they can get by with other HSE system. Actually, there are many people who claim they can teach PSM or provide assistance for PSM implementation. But, their qualifications are not proven or endorsed by well experienced PSM professionals. Their knowledge or experience may be limited or even biased. Therefore, it is extremely important to leverage real professional for PSM implementation. Otherwise, all you will learn are only fake professionals are ultimately fake.

第三，领导对于 PSM了解得越多，员工的了解程度也就越高。这不是说笑。当领导非常懂 PSM 时，他的下属也不敢在领导面前显得太无知啊。这就叫做“以身作则”。领导都不必说太多，员工从你的日常的一举一动中完全能够理解你希望传递的信息，他

们也就会自动地把 PSM 工作当成自己的重点。不幸的是大多数领导通常都太过忙碌，没有时间静下心来听听关于 PSM的二三事。他们倾向于把 PSM当成 HSE实施的另一种简单的体系框架，他们所能收获的也就如同实施其他 HSE 体系一样寥寥。事实上，很多人宣称他们能够开班教授 PSM或者提供 PSM实施辅导，这些人的素质良莠不齐。因而在实施时必须要把好关,选择有经验有资质的老师，否则你很快就会了解什么是“天桥把式、不堪一击”。

Fourthly, training is not carried out effectively. Everyone knows the importance of

training. An organization will not able to make any improvement or advancement without learning new ways or better ways of doing their job. A lot of time and money were spent on trainings, yet, the effectiveness is relatively low. We can pick a few defects for example easily:

第四，培训不注重实际效果。每个人都了解培训的重要性，一个组织如果固步自封，

不去学习新的方法，探究更佳的方式，就无法取得进步。组织通常都会花费大量的时间

和金钱在培训上，但是培训的效果大打折扣。我们可以很容易就举出一堆例子来证明这

一论断： 1. No overall training plans. Training plans are not made base on true demand. More

often the true training needs are often neglected. So, person‐in‐charge doesn’t know why training is required; doesn’t know who need to be trained. Training sessions are carried out ONLY to fill up the training records. Training sessions are often scheduled and arranged by HR department. They may not know the true needs of people who are actually doing the work. They may not have proper knowledge to pick the right trainer or professionals for the training job. 没有总体的培训计划，或者培训计划并不是由真实的培训需求得来的。很多时

候，真正的培训需求被掩盖忽视了。因此，主管不理解为什么需要参加那么多

培训，也不知道谁需要培训。培训更多是为了培训记录的好看和规避责任。培

训也通常由 HR部门协调安排，而 HR 部门如果与生产管理部门脱节，就不可能知道真实的培训需求是什么，也无法具备能力来挑选最合适的老师。

2. Training plans are not made base on true needs due to lack of understanding from the field. There is a mismatch between supply and demand. There is little audit conducted on the content of a training plan. We can find out a lot defects if we look into it closely, such as; there is no matrix on the available skills vs job requirement. 因为与基层脱节，培训计划没有反映出基层的实际培训需求。而对于培训计划


的内容缺少必要的审核和检查。如果仔细看一眼，我们能够很容易发现很多漏

洞，比如缺少相关的能力矩阵来比较实际能力与工作需要之间的差距。 3. Trainers are not qualified. So, their teaching quality is a great doubt.

讲师没有经过必须的筛选和资质认证，他们的教学质量堪忧。 4. Trainees are not selected. So, many people just sit there and play with cellphones.

Some of the students don’t even know why they are assigned to join the training. 学员也没有经过筛选，很多人是滥竽充数的，有些人甚至不知道自己为啥来，

来干啥。 5. Trainees are not verified or tested at the end of each training sessions to ensure

they have reached the desired training objectives. 在培训结束时没有对于学生的能力进行测试以判断他们是否完成了学习任务，

实现了学习目标 6. There is little follow‐up or audit on the execution of trainings. Training sessions are

sometime organized by non‐professionals. Therefore, it is difficult for them to conduct audit. 对于培训实施本身也没有进行跟踪调查或审核，如果培训是由外行组织的话，

他们确实也不具备进行审核的能力。

Fifthly, Management of Change with People is probably one of the most poorly executed PSM elements. There are many pretty well documented policy and procedures about how and when to move people around –promotion, demotion, changing post and etc. Yet, rules and procedures will not generate any significant effect if they were not followed and implemented. Critical positions were filled with very short notice. No one can fully capture and digest the entire important requirement within short period of time and be able to make instant transition to take full control of the new responsibilities of new assignment. The transition time is too short or none sometimes. There is little time for overlapping to handover important matters in person. Therefore, all the accumulated knowledge and past experience were mostly lost during the rush and haste. The new guy has to start everything from ground zero. This haste is the result of “poor planning – poor management if you will”. Bosses don’t have patience and they don’t like to wait. Yet, for important matters, we should all learn to be patient. We need to allow enough time for our people to be fully oriented for the new job. We should request a comprehensive and detailed transition of all facility, equipment, related information and document. So the new guy can do a seamless transition with his predecessor. We know the consequences if we open the steamer too early, the steam bread and the dishes will all be ruined；so will be the feast.

第五，人员变更管理通常也是 PSM 要素中执行得最糟糕的一块工作。关于人员的变动，怎么变，何时变，通常都会有各种精心制定的文件和程序来规范 – 晋升、降职、转岗等等。但是规则和程序是死的，如果现实中人们不去遵守执行，那么规则程序就发

挥不了任何作用。有些关键岗位很快就被填上，而短时间内没有人能够充分掌握和吸收

这一岗位的所有重要要求，并且能够迅速转换角色，在新的岗位上完全承担起责任。但

事实上，很多时候转岗的时间太短，容不得你仔细学习，将重要事项一一了解清楚。在

这样的匆忙交接中，很多积累的知识和经验就不知不觉地丢了，新人又必须从零开始。

这样的情形就是缺乏有效的计划和管理造成的。老板们通常没有耐心，不愿意等待，但

是对于一些关键事项，我们还是要学会耐心，留出足够的时间帮助新人上手，从前任那


儿获取全面的详尽的关于设施设备和工艺的信息及资料，这样才能实现无缝对接。我们

都知道过早解开蒸笼的锅盖会有什么样的后果，蒸的饭菜会夹生，盛宴没戏了。

Last, but not least, achieve operation excellence through operating discipline 最后，操作纪律对于保证工艺安全管理系统的落实与执行至关重要。

Normalization or rationalization of variation occurs when it becomes generally acceptable to deviate from safety rules, procedures, and processes. Safety rules and defenses are routinely circumvented in order to get the job done; or when the organization failing to provide necessary financial, human, and technical resources. To closely follow procedures or regulations is not a virtue very well recognized in some of the companies. From time to time, leaders may ask subordinates to accomplish “mission impossible” without adequate resources or even by‐passing related regulations. The execution relies on the lap of people‐in‐charge with limited means or no means at all. There is a good example of “management bully” which is to back‐count the completion date. The result is for the subordinates to complete a 3 months job in 3 weeks for various reasons (excuses).How can you complete a 3 month job in 3 weeks? The answer is obvious, to take a lot of short‐cuts. People will take short‐cut whenever there is a need or an opportunity because of the pressure or the order from their leaders. The labor forces have to work round the clock. You don’t have to see it with your eye. Only by imagination you can judge the quality of work or inspection. Not to mention confirmation or conformation.

当人们觉得是否遵守安全规则程序和流程的要求无所谓时，习惯性违章就成为常态。

人们会想法设法规避各种安全制度和屏障，以求尽快干完手上的活。或者当企业无法提

供必需的财务、人员和技术支持时，人们通常也会觉得牺牲一些安全措施是可以接受的。

在一些公司，遵章守纪没有被当成一种美德，如果当领导的时不时要求下属在不具备合

适资源甚至需要忽略一些相关规章制度去完成某些“不可能任务”时，这种任务的执行

就完全依赖相关负责人员了，他们手里的资源和方法通常少得可怜，执行过程中的安全

意识可想而知。这种霸道的管理方式我在很多地方屡见不鲜，一个例子就是任务完成时

间倒计时，领导很可能出于一些特别的考量（通常是借口），将原本需要3个月完成的任务逼着下属在三周内完成，这怎么可能呢？重压之下，下属只可能尽量偷工减料，多走

捷径，甚至没日没夜地赶工。这些情况你闭着眼睛都能想象出各种工作和检查的质量，

无需去证实了。 Therefore, the true problem or issue lies within the management level. It is a common knowledge that “boss knows best and boss is always right”. So, the entire organization will just follow the leaders’ mind‐set: to overlook anything that look like “useless or worthless” to operation effectiveness. Following procedures will be regarded as sign of stupidity. Evidences are plentiful if a PSSR is carefully done. In reality, those leaders will NOT take any responsibility if something went wrong later on. All the defects or blames will be pushed down to the lowest level within an organization. So, it is common to see rules or procedures be put aside. People do things in whatever way they like. There is no management or supervision to correct this deviation. Leaders themselves are the main cause of all random deviation. Rules or Procedures is just something on the wall only to show they have something. Conformation with the procedures is absolutely optional.


因此，真正的问题存在于领导层。大家共同的认知是“老板知道得最多，老板总是对的”，

因而整个组织追随着领导层的思路：忽略任何看起来无用的工作，以提高运营的效率（而

不是最终效果）。严格按照规定办事，很多时候被视作僵化不够灵活。如果你认真地进

行一次启动前安全检查，你就会明白我的意思。领导层要求速度，但事后如果出了问题，

他们通常又会推诿责任，所有的问题最终都是由组织里最低层级的人来背负，君不见，

太多的“临时工”被当做最后的替罪羊。在这样的企业，规则被置若罔闻，人们依照自

己的喜好和意愿来干活，也没有任何的监督和纠偏，事实上领导是最大的违章者。规章

制度只是挂在墙上显示一些存在感，遵守与否成为各人的选项了。 It is a common practice NOT to discipline anyone if a safety rule violation does not result in any consequences in the form of injury or equipment/material damage. Therefore, obeying safety rules became something optional to employees, as long as there is no consequence. There is a similar joke: “If there is no traffic police, then you did not violate any traffic rules even if you run over a red light.” Employees are lead to believe and behave on their own instinct. How can you expect the subordinates to follow the rules and regulations when the leaders are doing exact the contrary? It is the main obstacle to progress in a modern organization. Therefore, there may be many nicely printed safety policy and procedures on the book shelf. None is making any sense or difference at all. The thick safety rules are just for show. Employee’s willingness to comply with safety rules is so low that there is nothing to stop accident from happening except luck. In fact, the statistics tell us the majority of accidents can be prevented if employees are following the rules. Lead by setting examples is not a virtue among senior leaders. They think they are exceptions and immune from any consequences. 安全管理中，如果违章没有造成人身伤害或设备材料损失的话，通常很多领导睁只眼闭

只眼不去采取任何纪律处罚措施，这就会在导致大家形成一种观念，只要不出事，违章

无所谓。这就像是关于交通的一则笑话，“只要警察不在，你就算闯了红灯也不算交通

违章”。员工们如果没有经过纪律的洗礼，就会越来越按自己的直觉行事。而在领导带

头不遵守纪律的情况下，下属的执行只会更糟糕。在现代企业中，这经常是绕不过去的

一个弯。纵然有再多书面的规章制度和流程，它们只是一纸空文。员工如果养成习惯性

违章的风气，那么除了运气，我想不出任何可以阻止事故和伤害的方法。各种统计数字

告诉我们，如果员工遵守安全规章制度，大量的事故和伤害是可以避免的。领导如果不

能以身作则，总认为制度是为下面人准备的，他们自己可以豁免，那么企业不可能实现

真正的安全。 Management is willing to spend a lot of time and efforts to train people and implement various methods and skills. Yet, they completely overlooked the key issue. When employees have no value and desire to obey the rules and procedures, it is impossible to put PSM requirement in place. It is hopeless to wish that incident or accident will not occur. It is a shame that none of those leaders understand this simple rule of thumb: without discipline, rules and regulations are just papers. By closely analysis incidents or accidents, it will become evident that one of the main causes is non‐conformance with regulations. Leaders tend to interpret the regulations by their own comprehension ‐ It is a very dangerous behavior. To make narrow decision without knowing overall picture will for sure lead to incidents. Occasionally, people may argue that “incident happened because there is no rule


or procedures to guide the operation”. Sometimes, this is true and it is a management defect. Leaders should constantly check to ensure the quality of their procedures for operation or maintenance. If PSM elements were thoroughly implemented, the guidance and instructions from several elements would repeatedly request the organization to take effective and corrective measures to ensure “recognition and�

论文: 如何能在中国企业有效的运行PSM 作者: 杜邦中国安全管理 … · 版权@...

Documents

Transcript of 论文: 如何能在中国企业有效的运行PSM 作者: 杜邦中国安全管理 … · 版权@...