The System Safety Effort

Routinely, the government will require the SSPP to contain, at the very least, the items specified in MIL-STD-882. The SSPP will typically include explanations of the contractor s intended system safety program effort. The SSPP will usually provide detailed information about the system safety personnel and their qualifications, which must meet the minimum requirements of the RFP specifications. Information pertaining to intended Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and other types of operating instructions are also described. The SSPP should provide data regarding required products and services which will be developed during the contract period. 

The contract will also require specific products to be delivered to the customer at specified time periods or intervals. These items are usually found on the Contract 

Government agency issues RFP tor program, project, service, or product 

Contractor provides bid to government agency which inciudes system safety program requirements 

Government agency receives/reviews bids and selects contractor to perform work 

---

The roots of the system safety effort extend back at least to the 1940s and 1950s. Accurately tracing the early transition from the traditional trial-and-error approach to safety to the first-time safe effort that lies at the heart of system safety is really impossible, but such a transition occurred as both aircraft and weapon systems became more complex and the consequences of accidents became less acceptable. 

The work by Bill Johnson was expanded and supplemented throughout the 1970s by the System Safety Development Center (SSDC) in Idaho Falls, Idaho. The MORT program provides the direction for this second major branch of the system safety effort. 

One of the major problems confronting the system safety community is a lack of standardization or commonality. (This problem is discussed in detail in Chapter 4.) Presenting universally accepted definitions to even basic terms is therefore difficult because, by and large, they do not exist. The following terms are defined in nontechnical language to ensure the reader understands each term as used in this book. Specific definitions from documents widely used in the system safety effort are contained in the glossary, and definitions used by specific organizations are included in Chapter 3. 

The safety precedence sequence originated as part of the system safety effort and is one of the few tools that is common to nearly all system safety efforts. 

The system safety effort is sometimes called an approach, a discipline, a concept, a doctrine, and/or a philosophy. 

The system safety effort strives to be proactive by very early identification, analysis, and control of hazards to produce first-time safe systems. 

The government plan for developing, communicating, and monitoring the system safety effort may be called the system safety management plan. 

The primary objectives of the system safety effort are to identify, analyze, and control hazards to the extent possible with constraints of operational effectiveness, time, and money. 

The system safety effort should begin when the project begins and continue throughout the life cycle. The system safety effort concentrates, however, on... 

Management has the overall responsibility for ensuring that system safety programs are established, that they are adequately staffed at all levels, that the training is conducted for all personnel associated with the system safety effort, that safety concerns are identified and communicated, and that adequate resources are allocated. 

A system safety working group should have representatives from at least four groups or communities. Name them and discuss the skills or knowledge that each representative brings to the system safety effort. 

Level One. Corporate or headquarters. The system safety effort at this level usually consists of general oversight of multiple programs and development of policies and standards. 

Low-risk facilities are those with low energy levels and those with which the COE has a considerable amount of trouble-free experience, such as basic administrative buildings and housing. The system safety effort for these facilities may consist primarily of the PHL, with no additional analysis required. 

The HazOp study differs from the FMEA and ETBA in that some suggest that the best time to conduct a HazOp is when the design is fairly firm (Goldwaite 1987). Conventional system safety wisdom dictates that the system safety effort be as far upstream as practical, with a facility preliminary hazard analysis developed as part of the initial design effort and completed by the 35% stage. Also, a HazOp study tends to include human factors and operator errors whereas a traditional FMEA or ETBA normally examines hardware failures only. 

Eight general problem areas need to be addressed before the system safety effort can provide the safety services that will be needed in the next century. Many of these problems are interrelated. 

In order to produce believable RACs or any other quantitative risk assessment, reliable, valid data are required. Even though considerable data exist, they are not necessarily available or in the correct format. Improvements can be made in the sharing of lessons learned, mishap information, reliability data, and the other information needed to support the system safety effort. A well-organized effort to identify and catalog existing databases and to develop plans for the systematic collection and dissemination of new data would benefit the entire safety community. 

A sixth problem confronting the system safety effort is the lack of qualified system safety engineers and managers, even for system safety efforts in place at the beginning of the 1990s. If the system safety effort is to expand to meet the challenges of the next century, many more personnel will be required. Additionally, they will all need to know system safety objectives, concepts, and methods in order to participate in SSWGis and to interface with the overall effort. 

List the eight problems associated with the system safety effort. 

The greatest driver in the system safety effort as we move into the twenty-first century will be the realization that a well-managed system safety program is cost-effective. It contributes to better design and better products—not only better in terms of safety but also better in terms of customer satisfaction. 

Without enlightened and aggressive leadership, the necessary expansion and improvement in the system safety effort may come as the reaction to catastrophic accidents, litigation, or initiatives begun in other parts of the world. 

System safety may grow as a separate discipline or the system safety effort may be absorbed into the mainstream of industrial safety, loss prevention, risk management, loss control, or some other program. A new name or buzzword may appear. Nevertheless, the need for first-time safe systems and for the application of system safety principles, tools, and techniques to systematically identify, analyze, and control hazards as early in the life cycle as possible (with continuing efforts throughout the life cycle) will continue to grow indefinitely. 

What factors will drive expansion of the system safety effort in the future ... 

Discuss how the system safety efforts of the future will differ from existing programs. 

Very little real analysis is completed during the concept phase because analysis detail and data are generally not available. A preliminary risk assessment code (RAC) is determined, however, as part of the preliminary hazard list. This initial RAC is used to aid in determining the initial scope of the system safety effort and in the early evaluation of alternative designs and approaches. 

A data collection and retrieval system must be developed to support the system safety effort. This system includes project description and historical data as well as hazard tracking information. 

Discuss how traditional occupational and industrial safety inspections and worksite monitoring programs interface with the system safety effort. 

Most of the system safety effort involves providing a service. That service is to identify, analyze, and control hazards as early in the life cycle as possible in order to produce cost-effectively a safer end product. Several products are produced as part of the system safety effort. These products (all documents) communicate and document risk information to management and provide a means of monitoring and auditing the effort. 

System Ssfety Organization. The names, titles, organizations, addresses, and telephone numbers of persons assigned to the SSWG, individuals in the review cycle, key support personnel, and other individuals involved in the system safety effort are listed. 

The preliminary hazard list (PHL) dcKuments and provides initial assessment of hazards identified very early in the life cycle. The PHL is a feeder document for the preliminary hazard analysis (PHA) and provides the first information to aid in scaling the system safety effort. 

The accident analysis report determines and documents the root causes of accidents associated with the end product and includes new hazards, hazards inadequately controlled or analyzed, and new baseline information identified by the accident analysis in the system safety effort. 

A number of variables were considered during the design and testing of the end product. The system safety effort during the operating phase piodically compares actual parameters with those used in earlier analyses, updates operating and maintenance procedures as needed, and, if necessary, modifies the end product. 

---