Article

Maria Lorena dos Santos Souza; Adriana Villanova De Almeida

DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202602567

Article derived from a Final Course Work (TCC), with content based on the student’s original work and adapted to the editorial format of the E&S Magazine with the support of the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by the Pecege Institute for textual synthesis and organization.

Abstract

The implementation of a systematic process for the development and updating of technical and non-technical skills in Industrial Operations and Process Safety was analyzed in a highly complex chemical industry, belonging to a multinational company located in the Camaçari Petrochemical Complex, Bahia. The study aimed to implement a measurable and sustainable process that ensured the technical and non-technical competence of 100% of the operators, in compliance with the state legislation of Bahia, guidelines from international institutes, and corporate policies. The research was characterized as a mixed-methods case study, involving documentary diagnosis, semi-structured interviews with 85 experienced operators, critical task analysis, and the development and pilot application of a modular training program. This process highlighted the need for systematic alignment and updating of required competencies. The results obtained indicated the effectiveness of the proposed model, with 100% of the operators completing the theoretical and practical modules and achieving a pass rate of over 80%, in addition to operational compliance in the field. The work contributed a structured training model, including a competency matrix, modular training programs, and guidelines for certification and recertification, demonstrating potential for replication in other industrial units of high complexity and risk, and strengthening process safety and operational sustainability.

Keywords: Training; Competence; Soft skills; Process safety; Training.

1. Introduction

Operations in industries, particularly in the chemical sector, demand not only the existence of documented systems, processes, and procedures, but also a highly competent and continuously updated workforce. The inherent complexity of these environments, involving the handling of multiple chemicals classified as high-risk, requires a high degree of operational rigor and strict compliance with national and international safety standards.

Institutions such as the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), through the Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), and the International Association of Oil & Gas (IOGP), consistently emphasize the importance of worker competence. This competence encompasses both technical aspects and non-technical skills, being crucial for productivity, operational performance, and, fundamentally, for the prevention of major incidents.

Academic literature and historical records, as described by Hopkins (2022) and Kletz (2013), show that competence gaps and human failures are recurring causes of industrial accidents. In this context, AIChE (2021) establishes competence requirements for process safety, recommending a direct connection between risk analysis and training programs. Additionally, reports such as IOGP 501 (2020) and IOGP 502 (2014) offer guidelines for the development of non-technical skills.

The concept of “Crew Resource Management” (Gerenciamento de Recurso da Tripulação) is relevant, as it defines critical training models for complex environments, aiming to reduce human error by optimizing all available resources, ensuring safe operation in high-risk contexts. The ISO 10015:2020 standard, adopted in Brazil as ABNT NBR ISO 10015:2020 (Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas, 2020), guides competence management and people development as a continuous improvement cycle, while authors such as Portela (2013), Hopkins (2022), and Freire (2008) address learning and talent retention strategies.

The investigated company, an agribusiness multinational located in the Camaçari Petrochemical Complex, Bahia, operates as a model of excellence. However, its operational team of 85 operators, with diverse technical backgrounds and working in shifts, has not received formal training updates or process and operations knowledge refreshers in the last eight years. Approximately 25% of these professionals are newly hired operators with limited experience, which entails an increased risk in complex and high-risk operations.

The training lag was aggravated by changes in the mode of operation during the pandemic and by budgetary restrictions. The industrial environment is in constant transformation due to maintenance, process updates, equipment, and product variations, requiring continuous updating of industrial routines and equipment operation. Such alterations require not only technical updating but also the development of non-technical skills, such as situational awareness, decision-making, communication, teamwork, and situational leadership, essential for reducing operational risks, improving response to adverse events, and preserving critical knowledge.

The formation of technical competence is, moreover, a legal requirement, according to Technical Standard CEPRAM N-01/2017, approved by Resolution CEPRAM n°4578/2017 (State Environmental Council, 2017). This standard establishes formal training programs with a defined periodicity of up to five years and the disclosure of risk analysis results, aiming to ensure that all collaborators who work with hazardous substances possess adequate technical and non-technical competence to mitigate deviations, incidents, and accidents.

Given this scenario, the organization’s challenge consists of implementing a systematic, measurable, and sustainable process for the development and updating of competencies, with a focus on process safety, ensuring that all operators reach the required levels of operational proficiency, comply with regulatory requirements, and reduce the risk associated with the factory flow. The objective of this work is to implement a process for the development and updating of technical and non-technical competencies in Process Safety at the studied unit in order to ensure continuity in the development and maintenance of critical operational knowledge, through continuous and perpetual improvement for the operational team.

2. Material and Methods

The present study was characterized as a research of an applied nature, adopting a mixed methodological approach that integrated quantitative and qualitative elements. The focus of the investigation was on the process of development and updating of technical and non-technical skills of the operational force. The research was conducted in an industrial unit of a multinational agribusiness company, located in the Camaçari Petrochemical Complex, in Bahia, a plant with twenty-five years of operation.

The study was planned for a period of eighteen months, comprising the phases of diagnosis, model development, execution of a pilot project, validation, and reevaluation. The study population consisted of the entire operational force of the unit, composed of eighty-five operators working in shifts. These professionals had diverse technical training, with a background of training from the National Industry Apprenticeship Service (SENAI) and over nine hundred hours of coursework.

The research conduction followed a set of planned procedures to ensure the validity and reliability of the data. Initially, institutional approval was obtained from the unit’s board, as well as from the Health, Safety, and Environment (HSE) and production management. This stage ensured the confidentiality of sensitive information and the ethical treatment of data collected throughout the study.

Subsequently, documentary verification and evaluation were carried out, which included the collection of a history of previous training records. Corporate policies, operational procedures, risk analysis reports, incident history, and employee operational training and certification certificates were analyzed. Pertinent legislation, such as Technical Standard CEPRAM N-01/2017 (State Environmental Council, 2017), and industrial best practices, such as the guidelines from the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (2021) and the International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (2020, 2014), were also considered.

The qualitative research was conducted with experienced operators, specifically those classified as Operator III and IV. Simple random sampling was used, and data collection occurred through direct and semi-structured interviews, recorded on electronic forms, conducted in focus groups. This stage aimed to identify competence gaps, critical situations, and collect suggestions for improving training, based on the experienced operational routines.

The qualitative research, titled “It’s Your Turn!”, was applied four months before the start of the training, being sent to fifty-six operators from categories III and IV. Forty-one respondents participated, representing seventy-three percent of the initial sample. The questions addressed themes for the certification and recertification of the operation, in addition to topics on the training model and additional suggestions.

Additionally, an analysis of operational tasks, both routine and non-routine, was performed, and the existing competency matrix was evaluated. Critical tasks were mapped, identifying associated risks and the competencies required for their execution. The task selection criteria were based on criticality for operational safety, considering probability, severity of risks, frequency of execution, complexity of activities, and applicable legislation (State Environmental Council, 2017; American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 2021).

Semi-structured interviews with technical specialists and senior leadership from the production area, conducted in collective meetings, complemented the mapping of critical tasks. These interviews addressed topics such as operational errors, equipment failures due to lack of skill, safety events due to knowledge gaps, and operational changes that required knowledge review, providing a basis for the development of training programs.

The programs and content of the in-person training were structured into modules. A Certification of Operators’ Practical and Theoretical Training Matrix (MTPTCO) was developed, detailing the training plan, including modules such as “Initial Understanding of the Production Unit” and “Specific Production Unit Training”. Each topic was assigned to a specialist professional, and the practical field training, called “Learn While Doing”, listed critical and operational activities.

The certification training was organized into six main modules: Process, Operational Procedures, Safety Systems, Product Quality Control, Emergency Communications, and Control and Dashboard Systems. These modules were taught by process engineers, production, and technical specialists from the unit, with the internal development of teaching materials, software, and simulators.

To assess the understanding and application of the content, theoretical tests were developed, with multiple-choice and essay questions, and practical evaluations, using operational checklists and field and panel simulations. Direct observation was employed to measure non-technical skills, such as situational awareness, communication, and decision-making, considered crucial for safe operational performance.

The validation of the method’s effectiveness included conducting a theoretical validation pilot for operators I and II, applied to one hundred percent of the operators in these categories. Subsequently, the execution of training for operators III and IV was planned, which included panel simulations using a virtual plant and tabletop simulations, using critical scenarios derived from risk analyses.

The recertification model for operators III and IV was designed to ensure safe operation and continuous knowledge review, with programmatic modules adapted to the seniority of the trainees, according to the PSCM matrix (American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 2021). For operators I and II, the concepts of Level one and two were applied, while for operators III and IV, the concepts of Level three and four were used.

The implementation of the training program was rigorously documented, with schedules that respected work shifts and the recording of in-person training sessions for later publication on an online system. Employee participation was registered in a training management system, and certificates were issued. Recertification routines were integrated into the program, establishing a five-year cycle, with a maximum refresher period of three years, in compliance with legal requirements.

The continuous monitoring and evaluation of the program were planned to ensure its effectiveness, following the guidelines of ABNT NBR ISO 10015:2020 (Brazilian Association of Technical Standards, 2020). The creation of indicators for training management was proposed, including the percentage of trained and approved employees. Practical evaluations at six and twelve-month intervals, with reapplication of tests and observations, were designed to measure knowledge retention.

The data collected through interviews, focus groups with shift representatives, training analysts, and direct observations were subjected to content analysis. This technique aimed to identify difficulties faced by operators and opportunities for improvement in the training program. To ensure reproducibility, forms, teaching materials, questionnaires, checklists, the skills matrix, the schedule, and a step-by-step guide of the training executions were documented.

3. Results and Discussion

The implementation of a systematic process for the development and updating of technical and non-technical skills in process safety was the central focus of this study in a highly complex chemical industry. The established goal was to ensure that 100% of process operators, classified as Operators I to IV, completed the theoretical and practical modules within 18 months. This process aimed not only at the acquisition of operational technical knowledge but also at the development of behavioral aspects and the demonstration of operational compliance in critical routines and procedures, verified through field observations and evaluations. The methodology employed included institutional verification, documentary analysis, qualitative research with experienced operators, and critical task analysis, providing a robust foundation for the development of necessary competencies and allowing for continuous adjustments in training content through the collection of performance data and feedback.

The expected results, as outlined in the planning, included the creation of a measurable model to enhance situational awareness, decision-making capability under pressure and in adverse conditions, assertive communication, cross-functional collaboration, and situational leadership. The application of the structured methodology, based on recognized standards, sought not only the systematic updating of technical knowledge but also the continuous improvement of operators’ behavioral competencies. This alignment with the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (2021) guidelines on safety culture, which emphasizes top management commitment, was fundamental to the program’s acceptance and success.

The safety culture, recognized as the initial pillar of the Process Safety Commitment by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (2021), was positively encouraged by the organization’s top leadership. The Certification and Recertification program was established as a goal for the production units, with leadership sponsoring the skills training team and granting autonomy to develop innovative and disruptive processes, using digital tools. However, budgetary restrictions were imposed, limiting overtime and the hiring of external labor, which led to the inclusion of internal specialists, such as maintenance, integrity, process safety, production, and electrical engineers, to deliver the training, ensuring full absorption of the content and compliance with operational rest intervals.

The theoretical training in the classroom totaled 16 hours, while practical field activities were organized in intervals that balanced training with operational routines, without generating overtime. This process was completed in eight months for all operators, with mentoring from experienced professionals within the organization. This approach not only optimized costs by avoiding external hiring but also promoted the development of internal talent through mentoring and coaching. All designated instructors possessed the necessary knowledge and experience to deliver the training and evaluate participants fairly and technically.

Documentary verification and evaluation revealed that the operators’ last certification, through internal and external training, had occurred in 2019. This gap highlighted a weakness in the organization’s integrated management system, resulting in corporate non-conformities. The “Certification and Recertification of Process Operators” procedure was developed in accordance with CEPRAM Technical Standard NT-01/2017 and global requirements, establishing the need for certifications every three years. During the pandemic, a legal authorization allowed the postponement of training, through the reading of critical procedures and change management documents, in compliance with Process Safety guidelines.

The legal extension of the training also included formal study on incidents and accidents in the manufacturing units, in addition to reviews of process risk analyses, according to the Risk Management Program schedule. After the end of this extension, an external quality recertification audit identified a Non-Conformance classified as ‘EXPIRED’ due to the absence of records and evidence of formal training, which could lead to a Major Non-Conformance. It was observed that operators with more than 10 years at the company had updated training records, while those hired after 2019, mostly from categories I and II, were considered vulnerable in technical and cultural knowledge, making them a priority in the training schedule.

The training’s curriculum was structured based on local legislation, such as Technical Standard CEPRAM NT-01/2017, and international guidelines, such as the American Institute of Chemical Engineers’ “Process Safety Competency Matrix” [PSCM] (2021). The subjects covered included Integrity and Maintenance, Emergency Response, and detailed information on chemical product safety. Additionally, aspects of the production process were included, such as chemistry, critical operational variables, failure matrix, process and engineering flowcharts, operational safety procedures, change management, operational readiness, risk scenarios and analyses, contractor management, accident analysis and investigation, aiming at the prevention and mitigation of losses and the maintenance of a robust safety culture for operations.

Regarding “Crew Resource Management”, according to the IOGP 502 (2014) report, technical training was complemented by essential non-technical skills for critical and high-risk operations. Non-technical skills included situational awareness, decision-making, leadership, teamwork, and communication, which are crucial for high performance and for gains in efficiency and performance. Situational awareness was promoted by sharing risk analysis scenarios and discussions with engineers about critical variables and preventive barriers. Examples of historical accidents were used to illustrate potential consequences of failures, and unlimited access to the unit’s Technical Library allowed consultation of technical documentation, change history, and event records, reinforcing a culture of standardized and annually certified management.

Although IOGP 502 (2014) recommends aspects such as teamwork and leadership, these topics were not the main focus of this training, as they were already part of a mandatory training track with triennial reviews. For the development of more experienced operators, who acted as trainers for operators I and II, assertive communication courses (8 hours, by external consultancy) and adult education (4 hours, by internal corporate group) were offered. Forums on communication and shift handover were held to standardize minimum information on events and situations, ensuring the continuity of operational routines.

Short courses of up to two hours were offered with themes such as “Enabling Mindsets and Behaviors”, “Empowering and Promoting Collaboration”, and “Developing Leaders – Mentoring as a Bridge”. These initiatives aimed to enhance awareness and knowledge about teaching, based on Freire’s (2008) pedagogy of autonomy, which emphasizes creating opportunities for learners to construct their own knowledge. To ensure effective training aligned with the needs of field operators, and as suggested by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (2014) and ABNT NBR ISO 10015:2020 (Brazilian Association of Technical Standards, 2020), a qualitative survey, titled “It’s Your Turn!”, was conducted four months before the first training sessions.

The qualitative research was sent to 56 operators from categories III and IV, with the participation of 41 respondents, representing 73% of the initial sample. The main question that guided the training and recertification course was: “What topics should be addressed during the Operation Certification and Recertification processes?”. The results revealed the need for improvement in process knowledge, interpretation of control charts, problem-solving matrix, process event history (accidents, incidents, and deviations), process control logic and systems, and process chemistry, which covers the chemical-physical interaction of raw materials, inputs, and final products. As a suggestion, the theoretical and practical evaluation model was widely mentioned.

These components identified in the research were integrated into the training modules of Process Engineering and Chemistry, as well as in the Automation and Control module. Additionally, semi-structured interviews with technical specialists and collaboration with senior leadership from the production area allowed for the mapping of all critical tasks. These interviews, conducted in collective meetings, captured the perception of the administrative technical team regarding the main topics on which specialists and engineers were called upon to clarify or guide operators in the field and panel, the main operational errors experienced and/or corrected, the equipment that suffered breakdowns due to operational lack of skill, safety events with operational error as the root cause, and operational changes in the last five years that required knowledge review.

A prior mapping of each operator’s activities and their qualification level, including risk analyses with human aspects, already existed in the process safety management system. These analyses supported the creation of forms for “Practical Certification Training – Panel” for level III operators and “Practical Certification Training – Field” for level I and II operators. Level IV operators were evaluated by the process engineering, automation, and process safety areas. In areas with simulators, simulations of critical situations were applied, allowing operators to practice in safe conditions before a possible loss of control, according to the process safety documents.

The programs and content of the in-person training were structured into modules. At the end of the Certification and Recertification process, the Matrix of Practical and Theoretical Training for Operator Certification [MTPTCO] was created, detailing the training plan. This matrix included modules such as “Initial Understanding of the Production Unit,” which addresses general aspects of each system, and “Specific Training of the Production Unit,” which details subsystems and operational technical items, with documentary references and designated specialist professionals. A section of the matrix was dedicated to practical field training, called “Learn While Doing,” listing critical and operational activities with responsible persons for consultation and clarification.

Each module included an assessment with multiple-choice tests and subjective questions on problem-solving and responding to deviations and critical scenarios. The evaluation criterion established a performance above 90%; otherwise, the operator would be suspended from technical tasks and would require retraining and retesting. The certification training was structured into six modules, with a uniform methodology for all content, intended for operators I and II, who were new professionals or had less than three years of experience. The modules covered Process, Operational Procedures, Safety Systems, Product Quality Control, Emergency Communications, and Control Systems and Control Panel, detailing the topics of each.

The certification trainings were conducted by process engineers, production engineers, and technical specialists from the unit, with time adjusted according to the content of each module. All materials were developed internally, using technology tools, software, and simulators, without hiring external agents. This approach contributed to the reduction of operational costs and to the strengthening of the development of multiplier-trainer professionals. During each module, an assessment was carried out with at least ten questions. An achievement of 80% was established as a requirement for approval in each module, except for Emergency Communications and Emergency Systems, which required 100% achievement. If the student did not reach the minimum score, directed study with the trainer and a new assessment were necessary. If the final score was below 80%, entry into the area would not be accepted.

The practical training sessions were predominantly carried out in the first shift, with the constant presence of the unit’s technical specialist. Alternatively, activities took place in the second shift, with the mandatory participation of Operator IV, designated as trainer and tutor for Operators I and II, recognized for their extensive knowledge of the production area and operating systems. The practical training method included the performance of supervised tasks, study, and review of risk analyses associated with each equipment, module, or subsystem of the production unit. The area was classified by subsystem, and each subsystem had its activities evaluated by the shift leaders. The study of process flowcharts was promoted through practical supervision, allowing Operators I and II to be trained in a progressive and cumulative manner as they advanced in the MTPTCO.

As a method for evaluating practical training, presentations by operators I and II on subsystems, critical activities, and important points were proposed in bi-weekly meetings. Tests based on a checklist of critical items were conducted and verified in the field or orally assessed. These records were sent weekly to the training area for monitoring and registration in the management system. In case of a serious failure to comply with procedures or negligence of safety items during practical training, the shift leader would conduct an interview and develop an action plan. To validate effectiveness, a theoretical validation pilot was carried out for 100% of operators I and II, conducted by operators IV, which enabled the collection of performance data and immediate feedback. The course completion rate was over 80%, with no need for retraining, and practical activities and assessments were monitored and validated in the field over the following six months, with no reports of remedial processes.

The total schedule for the certification and recertification training process for operators began with training for operators I and II, evaluating effectiveness in terms of content, local structure, and the quality of teaching materials and the trainer. This process lasted nine months, considering the program’s conception and high leadership authorization. Only after this evaluation were the recertification trainings for operators III and IV scheduled. The recertification model for these operators was associated with the need for operational retraining, aiming to ensure the safe operation of the unit and the review of knowledge. The programmatic modules were repeated, but with changes in content, becoming more robust and technical, due to the seniority of those trained.

This is an aspect suggested by the PSCM matrix (American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 2021), which defines five levels of process safety proficiency. For operators I and II, the concepts of Levels 1 and 2 (Awareness and Basic Knowledge) were used, while for operators III and IV, the concepts of Levels 3 and 4 (Experienced and Expert) were applied. The modules on Safety Systems (focusing on critical operations), Control Systems and Control Panel, and Emergency Communication were maintained, but with greater technical depth. For operators III and IV, practical training included panel simulations, virtual plant simulations, and tabletop simulations, using critical scenarios from risk analyses, in order to activate preventive and/or mitigating barriers as necessary.

The evaluation of operators III and IV was carried out by engineers and technical specialists, with a required performance between 90% and 100%. If the result was between 80% and 89%, the Production/Process Engineer of the area would conduct a feedback session to discuss the evaluation errors. The evaluated individual should rewrite the questions to achieve a result between 90% and 100%. If the score was 79% or lower, the operator would have to take a second evaluation within one month, being able to repeat this process only once. However, this procedure was not necessary, as all operators achieved the required proficiency levels. After the completion of all training, the evaluation results were communicated to the shift leaders, engineers, area managers, and the head of the training area, attesting to the certification of the operators in the production unit.

The implementation of this training program model was documented in the management systems, ensuring traceability through the collection of evidence and issuance of certificates. Recertification routines were reviewed and integrated into the training program, establishing a five-year cycle, with maximum retraining every three years. This approach aimed to ensure that operators maintained their updated competencies and complied with the sector’s legal requirements. All documents pertinent to this process, including forms, teaching materials, questionnaires, checklists, matrices, and training schedules, were stored in the Training Management System.

The organizational procedure for Operator Certification and Recertification was reviewed, containing details on the execution of training and the responsibilities involved, so that it can be easily replicated in future campaigns, according to the established three-year interval. This documentation should also enable the implementation of the program in similar units, contributing to the construction of a culture of continuous learning and improvement in the company’s operations. Continuous monitoring and evaluation of the training program are essential to ensure its effectiveness and relevance. It was ensured that 100% of the current workforce, composed of 85 operators from categories I to IV, completed the training, with an approval rate exceeding 80%.

However, by the time this work was prepared, not all the necessary indicators for training management had been created. Performance indicators related to non-technical skills have not yet been defined, and this task will be left for a future stage of critical evaluation of the program. Furthermore, no methods have been planned to re-evaluate knowledge retention over time, before the three-year period, as this critical analysis is necessary in the planning and evaluation of the development and operations area, as required by the organization’s integrated management system, to ensure the reliability of operations in complex industrial systems. In summary, the study demonstrated the feasibility and effectiveness of a structured competency development model, achieving certification for 100% of the operators with an approval rate above 80% and operational compliance, although the need for continuous improvement and the definition of indicators for retention and non-technical skills remain as future challenges.

4. Conclusion

The present study aimed to implement a systematic process for the development and updating of technical and non-technical skills in Process Safety, seeking to ensure the continuity of critical operational knowledge in a highly complex chemical industry. It was found that the process was effectively implemented, resulting in the certification of 100% of the 85 operators, with a pass rate exceeding 80% in theoretical and practical modules, and the demonstration of operational compliance in the field. This structured training model, which included the Practical and Theoretical Certification Training Matrix for Operators (MTPTCO), was developed based on local legislation and international guidelines, integrating essential technical knowledge and non-technical skills. The adopted approach not only optimized costs by using internal specialists as instructors but also promoted talent development and strengthened the organization’s process safety culture, contributing to operational sustainability.

However, it was identified that the study, being a unique case in an industrial unit with high process safety maturity, has limitations regarding the generalization of results to other contexts. The absence of specific indicators for long-term knowledge retention management and for the measurement of non-technical skills was observed, which restricts a deeper evaluation of the impact on safety and operational indicators. It is therefore recommended that future studies explore the replication of this model in other units and sectors, develop quantitative metrics to assess the correlation between competence and risk reduction, and investigate knowledge retention and behavioral evolution of operators over time, including the integration of advanced technologies such as virtual reality and adaptive learning platforms.

Bibliographic References

American Institute of Chemical Engineers [AIChE]. (2014). Center for Chemical Process Safety. Diretrizes para Segurança de Processo Baseada em Risco. Edição 1. Editora Interciência. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.

American Institute of Chemical Engineers [AIChE]. (2021). Center for Chemical Process Safety. Diretrizes para definição de Requisitos de Competência para Segurança de Processo. Edição 1. Editora Interciência. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.

Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas [ABNT]. (2020). NBR 10015:2020: Gestão da qualidade – Diretrizes para gestão da competência e desenvolvimento de pessoas. Rio de Janeiro: ABNT.

Conselho Estadual do Meio Ambiente (Bahia). (2017). Resolução CEPRAM n°4.578, de 29 de setembro de 2017. Aprova a Norma Técnica CEPRAM NT-01-2017, que dispõe sobre o gerenciamento de riscos acidentais para substâncias perigosas no Estado da Bahia. Diário Oficial do Estado da Bahia, Salvador, 11 out.

Freire, P. (2008). Pedagogia da autonomia: saberes necessários à prática educativa. São Paulo, Brasil. Paz e Terra.

Hopkins, A. (2022). Decisões desastrosas: as causas humanas e organizacionais do desastre do Golfo do México. Blucher. Brasil. São Paulo. Disponível em: . Acesso em 09 fevereiro 2026.

International Association of Oil and gas Producers [IOGP]. (2014). Reports 502— Guidelines for implementing Well Operations Crew Resource Management training. Londres: IOGP. Disponível em: < https://www.iogp.org/bookstore/product/guidelines-for-implementing-well-operations-crew-resource-management-training/ >. Acesso em 09 de fevereiro 2026.

International Association of Oil and gas Producers [IOGP]. (2020). Reports 501— Crew Resource Management for Well Operations teams. Londres: IOGP. Disponível em:< https://www.iogp.org/bookstore/product/crew-resource-management-for-well-operations-teams/ >. Acesso em 09 de fevereiro 2026.

Kletz, T. A. (2013). O que houve de errado? casos de desastres em Plantas de Processo e como elas poderiam ter sido evitadas. Brasil: Editora Interciência.

Portela, G. (2013). Gerenciamento de riscos baseado em fatores humanos e cultura de segurança. Brasil. Editora Campus.

Article originating from the Final Course Work of the Specialization in Business Management of the MBA USP/Esalq

To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform