Re: [SystemSafety] Fwd: Measurement + Control

From: Peter Bernard Ladkin < >
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 13:00:57 +0100

On 12/16/13 11:51 AM, RICQUE Bertrand (SAGEM DEFENSE SECURITE) wrote:
> My experience is clearly that each time you make explicit what was implicit in a contractual relationship involving safety engineering, the reaction is systematically : "this what not foreseen at that level of detail in the contract", "this is far too much difficult and detailed job for our teams.".
> The odds today are that the entities outsourcing safety engineering have themselves no more clue about what is implicit ...

Yes, that is certainly a problem which needs to be resolved.

Ingo Rolle asked me to forward the following comment:

[begin comment Ingo Rolle]

To run a plant safely, complying with standards and purchasing good systems is one side of the coin, the other side is having reliable personnel. No plant can operate safely when unreliable people run and maintain it.

There must be people who transform the company's goals into technical systems, in particular with regard to safety measures. This function is core, and should not be outsourced. We are not speaking here about a common type of installation, but rather about one of the biggest fuel storage plants in the UK.

If a new device is delivered and is being installed, good maintenance personnel would check: are these devices suitable for the application? Can my colleagues work with them? Properly and safely?

It seems that in this case the people from the company to which the task was outsourced just did their job as it was described, and no more that that.

[end comment Ingo Rolle]

PBL Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, Faculty of Technology, University of Bielefeld, 33594 Bielefeld, Germany Tel+msg +49 (0)521 880 7319

The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety_at_xxxxxx Received on Tue Dec 17 2013 - 13:01:10 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Jun 04 2019 - 21:17:06 CEST