Railway Sleeper Wrote:PJW
I have attempted Module 2007 Question 2. Am I in the right dierection?
ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz..........
Yes I think on the correct lines.
You could have made the division between the three parts of the answer more obvious; in particular the first two seemed quite inter-twined and you run the risk of the examiner not finding things that they are looking for and thus not getting all the marks you might.
part a)
Personally I feel a little too much emphasis on writing reports / safety case etc to prove risk managed to be ALARP and too little re the actual scoping of the work, determining where / when / how to do it, briefing staff, providing adequate facilities, time and tools for the job, adequate supervision and monitoring by line management, learning from incidents & near misses from other parts of organisation etc
I think you certainly have explicitly considered both SYSTEM safety and PERSONNEL safety- you probably were but need to make this more apparent. For example nothing was said re "disconnections", any alternative means for keeping trains running during the work, re-testing afterwards before being handed back to operations. Always worth trying to work in "risk = likelihood x consequences" in any mod 1 question that mentions safety- possibly not that blatantly but by commenting which measures seek to reduce the likelihood of an error and those which seek to mitigate effects.
Similarly I think it would have been good to have more obviously gone through the life-cycle so that some cogniscence that the concept design can influence safety through the operational life and indeed when it comes to disposing of the life expired assets.
part b)
Remember competence = KATE= Knowledge, Attitude, Training, Experience.
Although you got much of the relevant stuff I think that ordering as:
"assess the requirements of the role,
recruit to fit profile,
give relevant training,
assess,
give appropriate tasks,
with mentor as necessary to grow skills and experience,
monitor performance,
further develop / refresh as required"
would make it more obvious. If you had put these as 8 bullet points but with a sentence or two with each to expand by giving a salient example, then I think you'd have got almost all those 8 marks quite easily; i.e. if you give 8 distinct and explained points, for which of these would examiner not give you a mark? However if the examiner has to hunt around in a less clear structure you may not get them all. I think I'd also give some examples of safety critical tasks perhaps in conjunction with the first bullet.
part c)
I think this is the part you answered best and that you'd have got at least 5 and probably 6 of the 7 marks. Perhaps you should have considered slightly more whether the diagrams were ambiguous or the design not as "foolproof" as it might have been, whether some improved tool or process would have reduced the chance of the error being made etc; also one should ask whether there was some violation of procedure that resulted in the person's work not being checked in the first place or whether there was a second person who failed to check adequately and thus let the error made become commissioned.
Overall I believe this was a good answer; I guess a Credit.
If you look at previous exam reviews, there are frequent comments that examiners do not welcome the names / numbers of standards being quoted at them per se; you'd have done well to have given a typical example of something from each.
Bullet points are good to list separate but related ideas; however I think after a sentence or two of more general explanation to give the overview which the bullets exemplify. The impression that I got for the first part of the answer was that each bullet point in itself was sound but seemed a little too isolated and random order rather than a logical progression of clearly argued points. So although there was good content the beginning did not feel like a good answer as not sure where it was leading...
PJW