OCIMF: Sharing good-quality data can produce valuable insights to improve safety

In an exclusive interview with the newly appointed Managing Director of OCIMF, Don Davis shared his priorities and broader vision for the inspection system. Following the implementation of SIRE 2.0, which supports a move away from viewing inspections as simple checklist exercises, OCIMF is now assessing inspection data to identify areas for further improvement.

At the same time, vessel operators and crews need to understand the purpose behind inspections rather than preparing simply to meet individual requirements. More broadly, the industry needs to stop treating human factors as separate from technical or operational safety.

SAFETY4SEA: You have taken the helm of OCIMF at a significant point in its evolution. What are your immediate priorities as Managing Director?

Don Davis: I’m very excited to be assuming the OCIMF MD role, since maritime safety is so personally important to me. I’m fortunate to be joining OCIMF at a time of strength for the organisation, having implemented and operated SIRE 2.0 for a couple of years, and more recently completing the refresh of OCIMF’s mission, scope, and branding.

Going forward, my key priorities to drive maritime safety are: 

1. Being risk-based and data-driven in everything we do to ensure we’re using our resources on the most value-adding activities for our members and for industry;
2. Efficient development and delivery of our publications and programmes to ensure we’re maximising our safety influence;
3. Modernisation of our data systems, to help maximise insights and value from our large data stores;
4. Incorporate Human Factors in everything we do, because we believe this can be a key to improving safety performance for our industry;
5. Enhance the effectiveness of our training programmes, leaning more on modern tools and techniques, as training is the foundation of our inspection programme and it also helps to disseminate our guidance.

S4S: OCIMF recently adopted the mission, “United in purpose to drive maritime safety in the energy sector.” What does this broader mission mean in practice for the organisation and its members?

D.D.: The broader mission reflects how the energy sector itself is changing. Maritime operations now support a more diverse range of energy sources, technologies, vessel types and operating models, so OCIMF’s scope has to widen with it. Our work exists to protect people, assets and the environment through better practice, not abstract debate. In practice, this means applying the experience and expertise within our membership to a wider range of maritime activities, while also recognising where we need to draw on new expertise. Our focus remains the same: understanding the risks, identifying effective safeguards and developing practical guidance and programmes that support safer operations across the energy sector.

S4S: As the energy sector becomes more diverse, how should maritime safety frameworks evolve to address new vessel types, cargoes, technologies and operating models?

D.D.: These new technologies will indeed necessitate changes to maritime safety and assurance frameworks. However, our well-established risk management approach of identifying associated risks and then effective safeguards to address them will remain equally effective here. Many of these risks sit at the interfaces, where new vessel types, fuels and operating models meet existing systems and responsibilities, and that is where our attention needs to be sharpest. One primary challenge, though, is industry’s need for best practice guidance on implementing these nascent technologies, at a time when there is little practical experience to refer to and inform ‘good practice’. Our challenge then is to establish guidance in these areas based on limited available empirical information. 

S4S: Drawing on your experience in tanker, offshore, barge and terminal operations, what do you consider the most pressing safety and operational challenges facing the industry today?

D.D.: Direct threats to seafarers resulting from the expanding and escalating geopolitical confrontation. Beyond that, the risks that concern me most are increasingly found at the interfaces, where vessel types, cargoes, technologies and operating models meet, and where responsibilities and expectations are not always clearly aligned.

S4S: SIRE 2.0 introduced a more risk-based, technology-enabled and human-centred approach to vessel inspections. What has the industry learned since its launch, and where is further improvement needed?

D.D.: One of the important changes in SIRE 2.0 is the move away from viewing an inspection as simply a checklist exercise. It provides a richer understanding of how a vessel is being operated, including the condition of its equipment, the effectiveness of its procedures and how those procedures are understood and applied onboard. Because the programme has been operating for some time, OCIMF now holds a significant body of inspection data. We can use that evidence to identify trends, understand where greater attention may be needed and further improve SIRE 2.0 based on what we are learning from the data. Consistency and capability also remain important. A more sophisticated inspection methodology places greater emphasis on professional judgement, making effective inspector training essential. Equally, vessel operators and crews need to understand the purpose behind the inspection rather than preparing simply to satisfy individual requirements.

S4S: How can OCIMF ensure that inspection and assurance programmes strengthen safety performance without creating unnecessary complexity or administrative burden for seafarers and operators?

D.D.: The test should be whether a requirement helps us understand or manage risk. Assurance programmes need enough structure to provide consistency and useful information, but additional processes do not necessarily mean additional safety. OCIMF should continue to use evidence and feedback from those using its programmes to ensure requirements remain proportionate, practical and focused on improving safety.

S4S: Human factors remain central to safe maritime operations. How can the industry better integrate competence, wellbeing, leadership and organisational culture into its safety-management approach?

D.D.: We need to stop treating human factors as something separate from technical or operational safety. Every procedure, piece of equipment and safety-management system ultimately has to be used by a person, often in demanding and time-critical circumstances. That means asking different questions when we look at incidents and operational performance. Rather than stopping at whether someone followed a procedure, we need to understand the conditions in which decisions were made, for example, by asking was the procedure practical? Was the person adequately trained? Were roles and responsibilities clear? What competing pressures existed? Did the working environment make it easier or harder to do the right thing? Leadership is particularly important because culture is shaped by what organisations consistently tolerate, encourage, and reward. A company can have very strong procedures on paper, but if operational pressures routinely pull people in another direction, the written system will not tell you the whole story. Human factors therefore need to be considered when equipment is designed, procedures are written, people are trained and performance is assessed. That is how they become part of the safety-management approach rather than an additional layer sitting alongside it.

S4S:Alternative fuels and emerging energy technologies introduce new operational risks. What role should OCIMF play in helping the industry manage these risks safely and consistently?

D.D.:  OCIMF’s role is to convene the industry before answers are settled, not after. We are already working with operators, technology providers and other industry bodies on the early risks around new fuels and interfaces and using that shared experience to shape guidance as it develops. That is what a collaborative, foresight-led approach looks like in practice, and it is how we help the industry manage these risks safely and consistently.

S4S: How important are data quality, digitalisation and information-sharing in improving marine assurance, and how can the industry build greater trust in the use of operational data?

D.D.:  The maritime industry has access to an enormous amount of data, but more data does not automatically lead to better decisions. Its value depends on its quality, consistency and understanding the operational context behind it. Building trust requires transparency about what data is collected, why it is collected and how it will be used. There also need to be clear safeguards around access and appropriate use, particularly where operational data may be commercially sensitive. Ultimately, people need to see that sharing good-quality data produces useful insights that can improve safety. That is what will give people confidence in the value of sharing it.

S4S: OCIMF brings together oil companies, vessel operators, terminal operators and other stakeholders. How can stronger collaboration across this wider community help address emerging safety and environmental challenges?

D.D.:  Many of the safety and environmental challenges facing the maritime energy sector cannot be solved effectively by individual organisations acting independently. Different companies may be managing the same emerging risk in different ways, which can create inconsistency across an industry where vessels, terminals, operators and energy companies are highly interconnected. OCIMF can bring that experience together, identify where a common approach would improve safety and turn collective learning into practical guidance and programmes. Collaboration also allows us to test whether proposed solutions work across different operating environments before they become established practice. The objective is not collaboration for its own sake, but greater consistency in how significant risks are understood and managed across the industry.

S4S: What is the biggest misconception about OCIMF’s role, and how would you like the industry’s understanding of the organisation to change under your leadership?

D.D.:  OCIMF is best known in many parts of the industry through programmes such as SIRE 2.0, which means there can be a tendency to think of OCIMF primarily as an inspection organisation. Marine assurance is clearly an important part of what we do, but it is only one part. We are best understood as a membership organisation: that brings the right expertise together at the right time and does not regulate or dictate outcomes. OCIMF convenes technical and operational expertise from across its membership and industry partners to address shared safety challenges, develop practical guidance and advocate for effective safety practices across the maritime energy sector. As our scope broadens, I would like the industry to have a better understanding of that wider role. OCIMF can help identify where collective action is needed, draw on the right expertise and translate that expertise into practical guidance and programmes that support safer operations.

S4S: What is your key message to maritime and energy-sector stakeholders as OCIMF enters this next chapter?

D.D.:  OCIMF’s vision of a maritime industry causing no harm to people or the environment has not changed. Our scope has broadened to include maritime aspects of new energy development, production, transportation, and use. We are proud to be a learning organisation committed to the continuous improvement of our publications, advocacy, and programmes and the promotion of maritime safety across the energy sector. Our collaborative partnerships with other industry organisations, academia, and users of those technologies will be critical to establishing timely safety practices for the benefit of all stakeholders.

source : safety4sea