© 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