2009 Q5 SAFETY ASSURANCE THROUGH LIFE CYCLE PHASES

[PJW]

Hi Peter,

I have been accepted to sit Mod 1 and 5 this year. Please see attached my attempts at questions 2, 5 and 7 of last year's Mod 1 paper.

Regards

Gethin

Q5
First section- a little bit sketchy for 7 marks I think and perhaps rather more of a "describe" than "explain". A little bit more detail and examples such as showing what you understand by "outline design level" would help. However I think you'd get at least 4/7 for what you've written.

Second section-
This started well enough but didn't live up to its early promise; I don't feel that you really:
a) "described how safety can be assured through EACH of these major stages"
b) "explained qualative/ quantitative risk assessment"
c) "described HOW cost enefit analysis can be used"
However you were "there or thereabouts".
You needed to give a wider range of examples which covered different stages within the lifecycle and also different sorts of risk- system, personnel, to installer, to maintainer, to passengers, to public, to environment.....
You need to illustrate by showing the variety of things that might go into the risk register, the Health & Safety file, the Operations & Maintenance manuals.
In total you had less than half a page and that just isn't going to be sufficient for 12 marks. You also used quite a few abbrieviations without defining / explaining. Definitely along the right lines but more flesh on the bones needed- give some typical examples of how risks are identified and categorise, how the safety benefit of a suggested mitigation is determined, what yardstick is used to determine whther it is "worth it", what makes it esential to adopt despite the cost etc.


Third section.
Again you can't hope to get 6 marks for 6 lines of text. I think you need to give some specific examples of what sort of design documents are reviewed, how a review can give confidence that the remit has been met. Probably need to talk about traceability and the use of tools to help show this.

Scope creep is certainly an issue worth raising, but worth putting in context in that there tend to be a range of stakeholders. A Train Operating Company may just want a longer platform so that they can run a longer train, however standards may require that not just the extension itself but the entire platform to be brought up to current safety standards and then perhaps legislation may also require diability access and that may need lifts to be provided on this platform and at the station entrance and hence costs spiral out of all proportion etc. This may well seem to be scope creep from the TOC's perspective as all they wanted was another 25m length of platform surface, but realistically in the world we live, then it was actually naive not to have realised initially that this would all be part and parcel of imnplementing the project. This should have been identified at the pre-feasibility stage and therefore, if they weren't able to justify the expenditure, then the idea quickly rejected before significant time and effort expended. Hence the project requirements are not just those relating to the business need, but those reflecting the reasonable aspirations of the safety regulator, maintainer etc.

So overall I don't think that this answer is quite up to a Pass but if it had been consistently up to the standard of the best bits then it would have been. You didn't do enough to demonstrate clearly that you had the full understanding that comes with experience. What you wrote was generally fine, but it needed bringing to life and the second (in particular) and third sections related back to the first section. You didn't mention the GRIP stage gates- what they are, the purpose for having them etc and this would have helped.

[cmcvea]

i have tackled my weakest subject and would avoid such a question if possible -be kind!

[PJW]

i have tackled my weakest subject and would avoid such a question if possible -be kind!

A lot of the skill in the exam is being able to avoid questions that don't suit!

Although I feel that I very much have the relevant experience for this question [having accumulated neary 30 years experience primarily in implementation of projects through almost all parts of the lifecycle ranging from consultancy in the early feasibility phases, work in the ISA / NoBo arena re approvals, a history in detailed design currently being Contractor's Responsible Engineering signing off design as Approved for Construction but primarily being known as a tester who has become deeply involved in the Verfication and Vaalidation of new projects], I am not sure that I'd have chosen this one- I don't have confidence that I can actually see what the examiners were really after from me.
Hence it would have been a bit of a gamble; I might have gone ahead on the basis that "there aren't many people better equipped to answer this than me and that probably includes you, Mr Examiner, so I am going to answer it in my way. I will be able to show you that I do have the relevant experience, include some things that you haven't thought of, weave in enough of your specific question so that you have to concede that I am very much on topic and thus effectively challenge you to dare not to give me good marks even if it was not quite the answer you thought you wanted. I could do this and would expect to succeed in carrying it off just because of my experience and when I am sure of my ground I can be quite assertive- however few candidates for the exam would be in that position and discretion may be the better part of valour.
===========================================================================

Anyway, regarding your attempt and with the proviso that I am notconfident that I am sure what answer they were expecting:

First part well answered, although perhaps a bit sketchy towards the end.
I

[PJW]

[quote]
I know it

[PJW]

[quote]
I know it

[loredgeew]

This post was inappropriate and hence removed
PJW





____________________________________________________________

[libracpy]

As a first practice of Module 1 question, may I ask any comment of the answer if available.

Thank you very much.

[PJW]

I think section a) was pretty well answered; clearly set out, relevant and of sensible length for the marks- in fact if anything some of the entries could have been slightly briefer to save a few moments.
Any answer can be criticised, but I think you'd be scoring close to the maximum marks for this bit.

Section b) explicitly required addressing 3 sub bullets and this element was also answered quite well, spoilt by having two entries for Quantified Risk Assessment due to a typo! Don't quite think you got the essential thing about CBA; it shouldn't be used for deciding what to do about safety risks- not at least in its "pure" form (explained more by inserted comment).

However I didn't feel that you did so well on the major part of "Describing how safety can be assured through the stages".
1. I do think that your idea of producing a table with the separate stages of the project on separate rows was good, but less convinced by the actual column headings and content chosen.
2. I don't think I'd have listed always a hazard for each stage (but I do accept that one could argue that if hazard log comprehensive then that mitigation of all hazards would ensure safety).
3. I did have difficulty in understanding some of the hazards.
I certainly could not rationalise the two QRA columns particularly as they always had identical entries. If they were supposed to be qualitative and quantitative, then better to have indicated which would have been used during which stage.
Similarly the "level of ALARP" didn't quite make sense.
I had no idea what the "Remarks" column was for (since entry was always NO regardless of the level of risk or cost).
4. More importantly, I believe that the table failed to DESCRIBE. Perhaps it needed some introduction just before it to explain how it was to be interpreted; perhaps it would have been better to have fewer columns but some text arranged with bullet points within it to do the description.
I went back to this table several times trying to comprehend how it addressed the question (as I think an examiner would do) but in the end I decided that it really didn't.
5. Most importantly what the answer failed to address in my mind is that Safety ASSURANCE is about a range of processes to give the required level of confidence, rather than just addressing a particular hazard per stage. There is a difference between closing out previously identified hazards and being confident that have achieved objective; certainly part of the answer but not the totality.
6. On the plus side you certainly attempted to work into your answer the sub-bullets re risk/ QRA / CBA; I don't feel that you actually achieved this very well, but at least you tried. However you seemed to veer off into tabulation of a risk assessment, which although part of the answer, isn't the totality and was not all strictly relevant to what was needed for this question.
7. I'd have tackled this more by explaining what processes need to take place at what time during the life-cycle first to identify hazards, then assess their risks, then consider options to mitigate and determine which solution to adopt etc. This could have either followed on from your initial part of the answer or indeed those definitions and explanations could have been incorporated within the description. Also could have mentioned things such as HAZOPs, HAZIDs, Fault Trees, Event Trees, FMECA etc as well as Safety Case, audits, processes etc.

Section c)

There was some good content in this section, but I believe a better answer would have focused upon

[libracpy]

I think section a) was pretty well answered; clearly set out, relevant and of sensible length for the marks- in fact if anything some of the entries could have been slightly briefer to save a few moments.
Any answer can be criticised, but I think you'd be scoring close to the maximum marks for this bit.

Section b) explicitly required addressing 3 sub bullets and this element was also answered quite well, spoilt by having two entries for Quantified Risk Assessment due to a typo! Don't quite think you got the essential thing about CBA; it shouldn't be used for deciding what to do about safety risks- not at least in its "pure" form (explained more by inserted comment).

However I didn't feel that you did so well on the major part of "Describing how safety can be assured through the stages".
................

Section c)

TO BE CONCLUDED LATER

As a first practice of Module 1 question, may I ask any comment of the answer if available.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for your valuable comment and feedback.

In fact, after review your comment about the answer, I think that I originally mis-understand the meaning of the question: {i.e. Describe how safety can be assured through each of these major stages.} The meaning of "EACH of these major stages" in my original mind is refer to "major stages in the project lifestyle", because the common wording - "major stages" is used. As a result, I use the table format for all 7 stages. However, I also think that it is not make sense for all 7 stages in practice as your view, and so I also have difficulty to answer this part of the question.

Besides of the content about the answer, may I ask one question about the skill of IRSE. Just use the above example and assume I have no better choice for other questions, if I have the difficulty to understand or answer this part of question, is it prefer to ignore this part of question, or try to answer which may be wrong.

Anyways, thanks again.

[PJW]

No I think you did understand OK, but the question did ask for MAJOR stages and that gives you some flexibility of what you count.
Also be aware that different organisations do make the sub-division into stages slightly differently.
1. Partly it depends when one considers a project "starting"- is it at the first possibility of an idea, is it when a significant amount of money has been committed for a feasibility study, is it when the concept design starts or only when some design for actual implementation starts?
2. Having just changed from the Network Rail to the London Underground world, I am having to get used to the fact that the stage-gates are a little different. For example one organisation may see site installation as a separate phase to site pre-testing, yet these often have to go hand-in-hand and so another organisation may reflect that and therefore lump them together.

I do agree though that you could reasonably take the view that for 7 marks it is good to list 7 stages in the initial section a.

In section b I think I'd have certainly referred to all the lifecycle but not so rigidly divided on a per stage basis. I'd have treated all the early stages (i.e all the early feasibility, optioneering, concept architecture design) together as these are all about capturing and allocating requirements, undertaking initial Hazard Analysis and moving through qualitative to quantified risk assessment when necessary; I would do it more by theme alluding to what is done earlier or later rather than rigidly presenting on a per stage basis.

Your approach was not wrong in this respect; it is just that I feel that my approach may be more beneficial on the basis of marks per minute; also feel less likely to duplicate what was already covered to some extent in section a).

==========================================================================
Coming to your other query (I have now posted the remainder of my comments on your answer by updating my earlier entry) re allocation of your time within the exam.
Actually you need to take a risk based approach!
Consider this:
1. If you don't write anything for a section, you WILL NOT GET ANY MARKS.
2. If you are not very certain that you are on the right track for a section, then it probably doesn't make much sense to spend too much time on it. Put something down but make it quite brief and sketchy- perhaps leave some space which gives you the chance to come back to it later.
3. Always consider how else you might be spending your time ; you need to invest it where it has the best chance of a good return (in marks per minute).
4. The first marks in any allocation are always the easiest to get and then they become progressively harder. So if there are 4 marks for a section, if you write nothing you will get 0. If you write anything at all relevant you'd get 0.5 and more probably 1. If an examiner I wouldn't allocate 2 unless I actually felt that you'd got enough to be at "pass" level and therefore I'd cap at 1.5 if I felt insufficient in quality or quantity. To get the third mark for the section is going to be difficult, as you need to have convinced me that that portion of the answer is more or less at "Distinction" level and to give the full 4 then it really has to be very good indeed.
5. In reality you are never going to get full marks and you will be short of time. Thus you can only afford to "go to town" in selected areas. Therefore if you are hesitant that you have really understood what is required in one section, but are happier that you are "on message" for another section then it makes sense to invest your time in the latter.

So I recommend using the mark score as an indication of how to spend your time; a 30 min question has 25 marks so that is easy to calculate- you can't afford to spend more than a minute for each mark (you need some initial thinking/ planning time, admin time, catch breath time). Unless you are happy that what you are writing is achieving a 100% hit rate, then don't spend more than 45secs per mark in order to gain that little bit more time for the areas where you think you are on firmer ground. However do spend 30sec per mark as a minimum on the section or you won't gain the easy marks you otherwise might.

Be very rigid and do not get carried away on any one section of a question and most certainly not on any question as it will definitely hurt your performance on another one. Whereas there often is a little overlap between what is needed in sections of one question and potentially some mark transfer by the examiner, this is explictly NOT the case between questions. Give yourself the full 30mins on each

Thank you very much for your valuable comment and feedback.

In fact, after review your comment about the answer, I think that I originally mis-understand the meaning of the question: {i.e. Describe how safety can be assured through each of these major stages.} The meaning of "EACH of these major stages" in my original mind is refer to "major stages in the project lifestyle", because the common wording - "major stages" is used. As a result, I use the table format for all 7 stages. However, I also think that it is not make sense for all 7 stages in practice as your view, and so I also have difficulty to answer this part of the question.

Besides of the content about the answer, may I ask one question about the skill of IRSE. Just use the above example and assume I have no better choice for other questions, if I have the difficulty to understand or answer this part of question, is it prefer to ignore this part of question, or try to answer which may be wrong.

Anyways, thanks again.