Managing Independent Dropped Object Surveys

Format: Interactive management workshop
Duration: 90 minutes

Audience
Asset owners, operators, OIMs, rig and facility managers, HSE and integrity leaders, technical authorities, and third‑party inspection company managers (operations, technical, and commercial).

Workshop Overview

Independent Dropped Object Surveys form a defined part of the wider DROPS dropped object management programme, which asset owners are expected to establish and maintain internally. This broader programme typically includes leadership engagement, reliable securing practices, routine DROPS inspections carried out by asset personnel, corrective action management, and ongoing performance review.

Within this framework, Independent Dropped Object Surveys provide periodic, independent assurance. They are intended to complement—not replace—internal DROPS inspections. Internal inspections provide frequent, day‑to‑day control and early identification of issues, while independent surveys introduce objective challenge, additional perspective, and confirmation that dropped object risks are being managed in line with DROPS recommended practice.

Over time, Independent Dropped Object Surveys have become a minimum requirement within DROPS guidance. As a result, operators commonly mandate that these surveys are carried out, either by the asset owner or, in some cases, by directly engaging third‑party inspection companies. Because surveys involve significant cost, specialist access capability, and operational impact, they are often subject to close scrutiny and, at times, controversy.

Experience consistently shows that the effectiveness of a DROPS programme is influenced less by whether surveys are performed, and more by how they are commissioned, managed, and used. Decisions made by asset owners and operators—around scope, frequency, contracting models, and inspection provider selection—can either strengthen dropped object control or reduce surveys to compliance activities with limited assurance value.

A particularly sensitive and frequently debated issue is inspection competency. Rope access capability is commonly a minimum requirement for survey delivery, but access skills alone do not equate to effective dropped object assurance. Rope access work is physically demanding and often delivered through freelance or short‑term resourcing models, with teams sometimes assembled specifically for a single inspection. In contrast, deep understanding of dropped object failure mechanisms, prevention principles, and asset‑specific risk typically develops through experience, continuity, and seniority.

These attributes are not incompatible, but they are not always present within the same individuals or team structures. Where inspection providers are selected primarily on lowest cost, this can increase reliance on less experienced personnel, limit technical oversight, and reduce continuity between surveys. While this does not automatically result in poor outcomes, it materially increases the risk that survey findings lack depth, consistency, or practical value.

This workshop focuses on the management of Independent Dropped Object Surveys, not inspection technique. It examines how asset owners, operators, and inspection company managers can make informed decisions when selecting providers, structuring teams, setting expectations, and overseeing delivery, so that surveys contribute meaningfully to effective dropped object risk control rather than simply satisfying a requirement.

Inspections, Surveys, and Auditing

Dropped object inspections, independent surveys, and audits serve different but complementary purposes, and confusion between them can lead to misplaced effort and false confidence.

Internal DROPS inspections are inspection‑led activities carried out by asset personnel to maintain routine control and identify issues early. Independent Dropped Object Surveys are more comprehensive inspection‑based activities intended to provide periodic, objective assurance. Auditing, by contrast, examines how effectively dropped object risks are managed through systems, leadership, competence, and decision‑making.

While this workshop focuses on surveys, it recognises that in some situations a focused dropped object audit can provide deeper insight than a comprehensive survey—particularly when undertaken on behalf of an operator seeking assurance on how risks are controlled, rather than simply where defects exist. A separate workshop will address dropped object auditing in detail.

Technology, Data, and Innovation

Technology is increasingly shaping how dropped object inspections and surveys are planned, executed, and managed. Digital tools now support improved consistency, transparency, and follow‑up, while emerging inspection technologies are influencing how access and observation challenges are addressed.

The workshop explores:

• Use of digital checklists and inspection platforms to standardise data capture and reduce subjectivity

• Improved management of findings, close‑out actions, and accountability through integrated systems

• The growing role of remote inspection technologies, such as drones and fixed cameras

• Early applications of optical recognition and image analysis to support identification of dropped object hazards

Technology can enhance efficiency and oversight, but it does not replace informed judgement, experience, or clear management decisions. The session considers how technology can strengthen assurance without creating new blind spots.

Using Surveys as a Capability‑Building Opportunity

Independent Dropped Object Surveys often bring experienced inspectors and subject matter experts onto an asset for a limited period. This creates an opportunity that is frequently underutilised: using surveys to build capability on board.

When subject matter experts are actively engaged, they can share insight into dropped object failure mechanisms, effective securing practices, and common weaknesses observed across the industry. This interaction can strengthen the competence of onboard personnel, improve the quality of internal DROPS inspections, and enhance shared understanding of risk.

The workshop highlights how owners, operators, and inspection companies can deliberately incorporate knowledge transfer, coaching, and informal learning into survey planning and execution, ensuring that the presence of expertise on board delivers lasting value beyond the survey report.

Expectations, Limitations, and Common Misunderstandings

Independent Dropped Object Surveys are frequently burdened with implicit expectations that go beyond their intended purpose. Misalignment between asset owners, operators, and third‑party inspection companies is a common source of frustration, disputed findings, and reduced assurance value.

The workshop explicitly addresses:

• What asset owners and operators should reasonably expect from third‑party survey companies

• What surveys are not designed to deliver, and where responsibility remains with the asset owner or operator

• Common misunderstandings around independence, scope, and authority

• The distinction between identifying hazards and owning or closing risk

• Where survey findings are often challenged incorrectly, and where challenge is appropriate

By clarifying these boundaries, the session helps organisations set realistic expectations, reduce friction, and use Independent Dropped Object Surveys more effectively as part of a broader DROPS programme.

What You Will Learn

Participants will:

• Understand how Independent Dropped Object Surveys fit within the wider DROPS management programme

• Recognise the different roles of internal inspections, independent surveys, and audits

• Understand how provider selection, contracting models, and team composition influence survey outcomes

• Identify factors that strengthen or undermine inspection competency and independence

• Learn how technology can support survey quality, follow‑up, and assurance

• Explore how surveys can be used to build onboard capability, not just generate reports

Who Should Attend

This workshop is suitable for:

• Asset owners and operators responsible for dropped object risk

• OIMs, rig and facility managers

• HSE, integrity, and assurance leaders

• Technical authorities

• Third‑party inspection company managers seeking to improve delivery quality and client outcomes

Why Attend

Participants will leave with:

• A clear understanding of how Independent Dropped Object Surveys should be managed

• Practical insight into selecting and overseeing inspection providers effectively

• Improved alignment between asset owners, operators, and inspection companies

• Informed perspectives on using surveys to support effective dropped object risk control and organisational learning