© cgi group inc. 2014 macro assurance safety effectiveness monitoring and metrification mark machin...
TRANSCRIPT
© CGI Group Inc. 2014
Macro Assurance
Safety Effectiveness Monitoring and MetrificationMark MachinJune 2014
2
Macro Assurance
3
Agenda
•Context
•Traditional Methods
•Metrification Approach
•Informs
•Summary
4
CGI
Founded in 1976, CGI is a global IT and business process services provider with 68,000 professionals delivering high-quality business consulting, systems integration and managed services.
5
CGI – UK Safety Supply
6
CGI Safety Assurance
7
Traditional Monitoring Methods
RiskManage
8
Effectiveness and Risk
9
Metrification
Chalkboard
ProjectManagmentSafety Management
Planning
Budget
TeamworkCommunication
Strategy
DocumentationPeople
Users
Scope
Software
Hardware
Audit
Review
Checklist
Controls
Risk *
Impact
11
Indicators
12
Status of Programme
•How close is the system / service to operational service?
13
Size and Complexity
•What is the scale and sophistication of the system/service? •How much new technology is used?•What are the human interactions ?
14
COTS Products and COTS Maturity
•Are the COTS/GFE/PDS/SOUP appropriate for the solution? •Do they have a track record in this usage? •Are they industry-standard?
15
Staffing and Competency
•Is the programme sufficiently resourced by suitably competent safety staff?
16
Safety Justification /Documentation
• Does the project / service have the documents which could be used to justify the safety position?
17
Safety Development Gap
•How close is the design / delivered solution to the safety requirement originally intended? •What has been used / developed that does not meet the standard, or is not at the right level, SIL or DAL?
18
Residual risk level
• What is the remaining risk level with the system/service?
19
Usage Exposure
•How much live usage is there of the system/service?
20
Programme Fragmentation
•Are there multiple development / service sites / many subcontractors or layers of supply?
21
Client Involvement & Effectiveness
•Does the client understand safety and operate an effective System Safety Management System? •Are they distracted by other issues?
22
Responsibility for Safety
• How much responsibility do we have for safety aspects within the project/service? •What liabilities for consequential losses / 3rd party claims do we have via the contract or other means?
23
Accident Proximity and Severity
•How severe could an accident be that related to our system / service? •Could it be directly caused by our system/service?
24
History of Safety Problems, Incidents and Accidents
•What has happened on the programme to date with safety consequences? •What has/could have led to an accident?
25
Corporate Impact including Tolerability, Publicity, Investigations and Claims
•How would a serious accident in this sector / industry context be perceived by the general public? •How much would it affect the company? •Would a claim be likely? •Would it generate press interest?
26
Effectiveness Index
•Indicators operate a 1 to 5 qualified index
•Framework for technical judgment
•Common influence weighting is applied
•Index and weightings give an Risk Index
27
Summary ViewC
on
fid
ence
Sta
tus
of
Pro
gra
mm
e
Siz
e an
d C
om
ple
xity
CO
TS
Pro
du
cts
and
CO
TS
M
atu
rity
Sta
ffin
g a
nd
Co
mp
eten
cy
Saf
ety
Just
ific
atio
n
/Do
cum
enta
tio
n
Saf
ety
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Gap
Res
idu
al r
isk
leve
l
Usa
ge
Exp
osu
re
Pro
gra
mm
e F
rag
men
tati
on
Cli
ent
Invo
lvem
ent
&
Eff
ecti
ven
ess
Ou
r R
esp
on
sib
ilit
y fo
r S
afet
y
Acc
iden
t P
roxi
mit
y an
d
Sev
erit
y
His
tory
of
Saf
ety
Pro
ble
ms,
In
cid
ents
an
d A
ccid
ents
Co
rpo
rate
Im
pac
t in
clu
din
g
To
lera
bil
ity,
Pu
bli
city
, In
vest
igat
ion
s an
d C
laim
s
RIS
K I
nd
ex
RIS
K L
EV
EL
High 5 4 4 2 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 0.63 EHigh 2 3 3 3 4 5 5 3 2 3 4 3 4 3 0.59 DHigh 5 2 2 3 2 3 4 2 2 5 3 2 1 3 0.47 CHigh 5 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 0.46 CHigh 5 2 2 3 1 1 3 3 3 4 2 3 1 2 0.38 BHigh 5 4 3 3 2 1 2 3 3 3 2 4 1 2 0.41 CHigh 5 3 2 4 2 1 3 3 3 2 2 3 1 3 0.41 CHigh 5 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 2 1 2 0.41 CHigh 5 2 2 4 2 1 1 3 1 4 2 2 1 2 0.34 BHigh 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 3 1 4 3 4 1 4 0.34 BHigh 5 3 1 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 4 3 1 2 0.33 BHigh 5 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 2 0.26 AHigh 1 2 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 0.11 A
28
Monitoring
•Ranking
•Trending
•Early Intervention
•Continuous assessment
29
Potential Insights
Current Target
High Residual Risk
G C B
F C B
E C B
D C B
C C B
B C B
A C BLow Residual Risk
C
0123456789
101112131415
Status of Programme.
Size and Complexity.
COTS Products and COTS Maturity.
Staffing and Competency.
Safety Justification/Documentation.
Safety Development Gap.
Programme Fragmentation.
Accident Proximity and Severity.
Residual risk level.
Client Involvement & Effectiveness.
Our Responsibility for Safety.
Usage Exposure.
History of Safety Problems, Incidents and Accidents.
Corporate Impact including Tolerability, Publicity, Investigations and Claims.
WeightedChartCurrentRating
Sta
tus
of
Pro
gra
mm
e
Siz
e an
d C
om
ple
xity
CO
TS
Pro
du
cts
and
CO
TS
M
atu
rity
Sta
ffin
g a
nd
Co
mp
eten
cy
Saf
ety
Just
ific
atio
n
/Do
cum
enta
tio
n
Saf
ety
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Gap
Res
idu
al r
isk
leve
l
Usa
ge
Exp
osu
re
Pro
gra
mm
e F
rag
men
tati
on
Cli
ent
Invo
lvem
ent
&
Eff
ecti
ven
ess
Ou
r R
esp
on
sib
ilit
y fo
r S
afet
y
Acc
iden
t P
roxi
mit
y an
d S
ever
ity
His
tory
of
Saf
ety
Pro
ble
ms,
In
cid
ents
an
d A
ccid
ents
Co
rpo
rate
Im
pac
t in
clu
din
g
To
lera
bil
ity,
Pu
bli
city
, In
vest
igat
ion
s an
d C
laim
s
RIS
K
RIS
K L
EV
EL
Current 5 2 2 3 5 2 3 3 1 5 3 2 1 3 0.49 C
Target Steady State 5 2 2 3 5 1 2 2 1 2 3 2 1 3 0.39 B
30
Chalkboard 2
ProjectManagment
Planning
Budget
TeamworkCommunication
Strategy
DocumentationPeople
Users
Scope
Software
Hardware
Audit
Review
Checklist
Controls
Risk *
Impact
Safety Management
31
Summary
•Continuous agnostic and holistic overview approach •Metrics framework to inform monitoring•Means to visualise and articulate effectiveness of risk management across the totality of the supply. •Vehicle to engage and drive safety culture
32
Questions