Category: Mil-Std-882E

Categories
Blog Mil-Std-882E Risk Assessment

More Resources for Risk Assessment

#Resources #Risk-Assessment #Programs #Course
More Resources for Risk Assessment Programs Course

Welcome to Module Five, More Resources for Risk Assessment. We’re on the home straight now! This is the last of the five modules. I will let you know where to get more resources and help on these topics.

Course Learning Objectives

  • Describe fundamental risk concepts;
  • Explain what a system safety approach is and does;
  • Define what a risk analysis program is; 
  • List the hazard analysis tasks that make up a program;
  • Select tasks to meet your needs;
  • Design a tailored risk analysis program for any application; and
  • Know how to get more information and resources.

More Resources for Risk Assessment: Transcript

Copyright/Source Statement

“First, I want to point out that I’ve been referring to a standard; Military Standard 882E, a copyright-free publication. It’s a US standard and is available to download for free at many different locations. One of them is the US Defence Acquisition University. As far as I can tell, this is the official home of it now. You can search for ‘DAU’ or ‘Defence Acquisition University’ [to find it]. And when you go there, this is a search function, which is very good. You’ll find 882E very easily. But here’s the link for reference now.

So that is copyright-free. This presentation, of course, is copyright The Safety Artisan of this year (2021). But it’s also worth saying that there’s a lot more out there. There’s more help you can get than the standard by itself. The Defence Acquisition University for some reason doesn’t seem to publish much on 882E, either in the way of guidance or help on how to use this standard.

For More…

If you want more information, please feel free to go to The Safety Artisan channel on YouTube; subscribe to the channel and click on the bell symbol to get informed whenever a new video comes out. There are lots of free videos on The Safety Artisan channel. And also short free demo versions of the paid videos. So, if you want to look at a video to see whether you think it’s worth buying, there will be a free version on there. Either a two-minute thing with subtitles or, for a lot of the lessons, there’s a full seven minutes. It’s the first seven minutes of the lesson. So you can get a flavor of what’s there.

And then for more videos and resources, you can visit this site, www.safetyartisan.com. That’s got all the information there. It’s a secure site. Here you can sign up for regular emails from The Safety Artisan. And that will get you a free Course Triple Bundle. Please feel free to help yourself and look at the free goodies!

Mil-Std-882E Analysis Tasks

But also, there are ‘paid lessons’ on each one of the 10 [Mil-Std-882E] Tasks. Lessons on average are about – most of the lessons are about forty-five minutes. Some are a little bit shorter at thirty-five minutes. And the Environmental one is an hour. As is, the Health Hazard Analysis one. That’s because those are very complex tasks. So they vary from about 35 to 60 minutes in length each.

What and Why?

And for each of those old video training sessions, you will get some in-depth training on each task. Your training video will include a full description of the task, plus a commentary that I provide. You will get a full written transcript of the video as well. And if you go there, the page will tell you the benefits of each task. What it’s designed to do and how to apply it. Its pros and cons. And my expert tips from long and sometimes bitter experience on how to get the most out of these tasks. Also, pitfalls to avoid.

In Conclusion – Learning Objectives

Let’s recap, for this entire course, the five modules. You should now be able to describe your fundamental research concepts from Module One. From Module Two, you should be able to explain what a system safety approach is and does. You should be able to define what a risk analysis program is. You should be able to list the Hazard Analysis Tasks that make up a Safety Program. Or a Risk Analysis Program.

Critically, you should be able to select which tasks you need to meet your needs. And by doing that repeatedly, you should then be able to design a tailored Risk Analysis Program. And you should be able to do this for pretty much any application. And in the final module, you will have learned how to get more information. And where to find more in-depth resources on each of those 10 tasks. That’s in case you should need to go to the next level.

So, that’s what we’ve covered in this session.

End

And it just remains for me to say thanks very much for buying this [course] video and supporting the work of The Safety Artisan. I’m Simon and I would like to say a personal thanks very much to you. Goodbye and hope to see you again soon.”

This is Module 5 of SSRAP

This is Module 5 from the System Safety Risk Assessment Program (SSRAP) Course. Risk Analysis Programs – Design a System Safety Program for any system in any application.

The full course comprises 15 lessons and 1.5 hours of video content, plus resources. It’s on sale now, so check out all the free preview videos here!

Meet the Author

Learn safety engineering with me, an industry professional with 25 years of experience, I have:

•Worked on aircraft, ships, submarines, ATMS, trains, and software;

•Tiny programs to some of the biggest (Eurofighter, Future Submarine);

•In the UK and Australia, on US and European programs;

•Taught safety to hundreds of people in the classroom, and thousands online;

•Presented on safety topics at several international conferences.

Categories
Blog Mil-Std-882E Risk Assessment

Designing Your Risk Assessment Program

#SSRAP #Understand-Your-Standard
The Ten Viewpoints of Mil-Std-882E Hazard Analyses

Designing Your Risk Assessment Program. Which Ingredients should we use? In this post, I draw upon my 25+ years in system safety to give you some BOLD advice! I’m going to dare to suggest which analysis tasks are essential to every System Safety Program. I also suggest which tasks are optional depending on the system that you are analyzing.

Which Ingredients should we use?

  • Everything – high novelty, challenging requirements, bespoke development and massive scrutiny);
  • The Bare Essentials;
  • New Designs and Integrations;
  • The Human Element;
  • Electronics, Software and Data;
  • Combining existing Systems; and
  • Environmental Protection.

Video Highlights

Designing Your Safety Program – Highlights (SSRAP M4)

Topics

Designing Your Risk Assessment Program: Transcript

We’re onto Module Four – Designing Your Program.

This module aims to show you how to design a systematic, effective strategy for Risk Analysis. An effective program for Risk Analysis that isn’t wasteful. This module is a little bit longer than the others but bear with me! This is the real meat of what I promised you. So, let’s get started.

Multiple Points of View

As I said in a previous slide, we will deal with multiple points of view. We will use multiple points of view to look at the system from many different angles.

Ten different angles, in this case, one for each task. Each of those tasks brings a different perspective. So, each task has a different purpose. What they have in common is they are all there to bring out a different aspect of the system. They are different kinds of analysis, but they all have the same aim. To identify hazards and analyze hazards.

From that, we can then identify what we need to do to control those hazards. And that, in turn, gives us safety requirements. Sometimes they’re called ‘derived safety requirements’. They need to be met for the system to be safe. That’s the whole point of what we’re doing, as mentioned before.

Which Ingredients?

But if you’ve got everything then you only need all those 10 tasks if everything is in the red. Perhaps you’ve got a very novel system. You’ve got challenging performance requirements. You’ve got lots of bespoke development. And you’ve got a very critical system that’s going to get a lot of scrutiny. So, you need all 10 only if you’ve got a development from hell. Where you’ve got a very challenging development and you need all the tools you can get.

Now, that’s fine. That’s what the standard’s designed for. But very rarely are we going to work on a program where we’re pulling out all the stops. More often, we’re going to be working on something where there are some challenging areas and some less so. And we don’t need the entire program. We don’t need all 10 tasks to achieve success. And it’s OK to tailor your safety analysis to deliver value for money. In fact, this approach is better.

So, we’ve got some options here. I’m going to take you through the bare essentials. Those are what you need to do for every safety program. The work that we would do to address new designs and new integrations. Work that we would do to address the human element. This includes both parts of human factors. That’s the human contribution to safety and the impact that the system might have on human health. So, there’s a bit of back and forth in there in the two tasks there.

Then if our system has got programmable electronic software, we might need to look at that. Or if it has data that is being developed or modified, we need to look at that too. We need to assess the safety implications of the modifications/development. We might consider combining existing systems into a system of systems. And then finally, we might have to do environmental protection. So, the bare essentials plus those five optional elements are the ones that we will look at.

The Essentials #1

Let’s start with the essentials. I’m going to say it’s axiomatic – that every program needs these three tasks. It needs Preliminary Hazard Identification. It needs Preliminary Hazard Analysis. And it needs System Requirements Hazard Analysis. The last one is about identifying safety requirements for the system.

Now, that’s a very bold statement, is it for me to say you must have these elements in every safety program? Let me justify that, first of all, before I explain it a little bit in the next slide.

The first thing to note is that you can do these tasks early on. They are quick and cheap tasks if you do them early enough. If you do them early enough, it’s low granularity. So, it can be a quick and simple analysis. And because of that, it’s cheap. But don’t let that fool you! Getting in early and thinking about Risk early gives us valuable insight. Insight that we can then take action on. So we get actionable results early enough in the program to do something about it if we do it.

The second point to note with these three is that every other task depends on their outputs. Indeed, if you’re going to successfully tailor a safety program, you need the output from these tasks. They will help you focus on what’s important and what’s less important.

Thirdly, from experience, almost every program suffers from not doing these three tasks. Whether that be well enough, early enough, or both. I’ve never been on a program where we said, ‘We did too much Preliminary Hazard Identification Analysis!’. Nor ‘We did too much identification of safety requirements!’. That has never, ever happened in more than 20 years of experience working on safety programs.

It’s always been the opposite. We wish we’d done more. We wish we’d gone in earlier with these tasks. Then we would have known something that would have helped us to make sensible decisions. Ultimately, it would have saved a lot of time and money too! Think of these essentials as an investment, because that’s what they are…

This is Module 4 of SSRAP

This is Module 4 of the System Safety Risk Assessment Program (SSRAP) Course. Risk Analysis Programs – Design a System Safety Program for any system in any application.

The full course comprises 15 lessons and 1.5 hours of video content, plus resources. It’s on pre-sale at HALF PRICE until September 1st, 2024. Check out all the free preview videos here and order using the coupon “Pre-order-Half-Price-SSRAP”. But don’t leave it too long because there are only 100 half-price courses available!

Meet the Author

Learn safety engineering with me, an industry professional with 25 years of experience, I have:

•Worked on aircraft, ships, submarines, ATMS, trains, and software;

•Tiny programs to some of the biggest (Eurofighter, Future Submarine);

•In the UK and Australia, on US and European programs;

•Taught safety to hundreds of people in the classroom, and thousands online;

•Presented on safety topics at several international conferences.

Categories
Blog Mil-Std-882E Risk Assessment Safety Analysis

Understanding Your Risk Assessment Standard

#SSRAP #Understand-Your-Standard
The Ten Viewpoints of Mil-Std-882E Hazard Analyses

When Understanding Your Risk Assessment Standard, we need to know a few things. The standard is the thing that we’re going to use to achieve things – the tool. And that’s important because tools designed to do certain things usually perform well. But they don’t always perform well on other things. So we will ask ‘Are we doing the right thing?’ And ‘Are we doing it right?’

This post is part of a series:

Video Highlights

Understanding Your Standard: Highlights

Transcript

What and Why?

So, what will we do and why are we doing it? First, the use of safety standards is very common for many reasons. It helps us to have confidence that what we’re doing is good enough. We’ve met a standard of performance in the absolute sense. It helps us to say, ‘We’ve achieved standardization or commonality in what we’re doing’.

We can also use it to help us achieve a compromise. That can be a compromise across different stakeholders or different organizations. Standardization gives us some of the other benefits as well. If we’re all doing the same thing rather than we’re all doing different things, it makes it easier to train staff. This is one example of how a standard helps.

However, we need to understand this tool that we’re going to use. What it does, what it’s designed to do, and what it is not designed to do. That’s important for any standard or any tool. In safety, it’s particularly important because safety is in many respects an intangible. This is because we’re always looking to prevent a future problem from occurring. In the present, it’s a little bit abstract. It’s a bit intangible. So, we need to make sure that in concept what we’re doing makes sense and it’s coherent. That it works together. If we look at those five bullet points there, we need to understand the concept of each standard. We need to understand the basis of each one.

They’re not all based on the same concept. Thus, some of them are contradictory or incompatible. We need to understand the design of the standard. What the standard does, what the aim of the standard is, and why it came into existence. And who brought it into existence. To do what for who – who’s the ultimate customer here?

For risk analysis standards, we need to understand what kind of risks it addresses. Because the way you treat a financial risk might be very different from a safety risk. In the world of finance, you might have a portfolio of products, like loans. These products might have some risks associated with them. One or two loans might go bad and you might lose money on those. But as long as the whole portfolio is making money that might be acceptable to you. You might say, ‘I’m not worried about that 10% of my loans have gone south and all gone wrong. I’m still making plenty of profit out of the other 90%’. It doesn’t work that way with safety. You can’t say ‘It’s OK that I’ve killed a few people over here because all this a lot over here are still alive!’. It doesn’t work like that!

Also, what kind of evidence does the standard produce? Because in safety, we are very often working in a legal framework that requires us to do certain things. It requires us to achieve a certain level of safety and prove that we have done so. So, we need certain kinds of evidence. In different jurisdictions and different industries, some evidence is acceptable. Some are not. You need to know which is for your area. And then finally, let’s think about the pros and cons of the standard, what does it do well? And what does it do not so well?

System Safety Pedigree

We’re going to look at a standard called Military Standard 882E. This standard was first developed several decades ago. It was created by the US government and military to help them bring into service complex cutting-edge military equipment. Equipment that was always on the cutting edge. That pushes the limits of what you can achieve in performance.

That’s a lot of complexity. Lots of critical weapon systems, and so forth. So they needed something that could cope with all that complexity. It’s a system safety engineering standard. It’s used by engineers, but also by many other specialists. As I said, it’s got a background in military systems. These days you find these principles used pretty much everywhere. So, all the approaches to System Safety that 882 introduced are in other standards. They are also in other countries.

It addresses risks to people, equipment, and the environment, as we heard earlier. And because it’s an American standard, it’s about system safety. It’s very much about identifying requirements. What do we need to happen to get safety? To do that, it produces lots of requirements. It performs analyses of all those requirements and generates further requirements. And it produces requirements for test evidence. We then need to fulfill these requirements. It’s got several important advantages and disadvantages. We’re going to discuss these in the next few slides…

This is Module 3 of SSRAP

‘Understanding Your Risk Assessment Standard’ is Module 3 of the System Safety Risk Assessment Program (SSRAP) Course. Risk Analysis Programs – Design a System Safety Program for any system in any application.

The full course comprises 15 lessons and 1.5 hours of video content, plus resources. It’s on pre-sale at HALF PRICE until September 1st, 2024. Check out all the free preview videos here and order using the coupon “Pre-order-Half-Price-SSRAP”. But don’t leave it too long because there are only 100 half-price courses available!

Meet the Author

Learn safety engineering with me, an industry professional with 25 years of experience, I have:

•Worked on aircraft, ships, submarines, ATMS, trains, and software;

•Tiny programs to some of the biggest (Eurofighter, Future Submarine);

•In the UK and Australia, on US and European programs;

•Taught safety to hundreds of people in the classroom, and thousands online;

•Presented on safety topics at several international conferences.

Categories
Blog Mil-Std-882E

Environmental Hazard Analysis

This is the full-length (one hour) session on Environmental Hazard Analysis (EHA), which is Task 210 in Mil-Std-882E. I explore the aim, task description, and contracting requirements of this Task, but this is only half the video. In the commentary, I then look at environmental requirements in the USA, UK, and Australia, before examining how to apply EHA in detail under the Australian/international regime. This uses my practical experience of applying EHA. 

You Will Learn to:

  • Conduct EHA according to the standard;
  • Record EHA results correctly;
  • Contract for EHA successfully;
  • Be aware of the regulatory scene in the US, UK, and Australia;
  • Appreciate the complexities of conducting EHA in Australia; and
  • Recognize when your EHA program requires specialist support.
This is the seven-minute demo of the full-length (one hour) session on Environmental Hazard Analysis.

Topics: Environmental Hazard Analysis

  • Environmental Hazard Analysis (EHA) Purpose;
  • Task Description (7+ slides);
  • Documentation, HAZMAT & Contracting (2 slides each);
  • Commentary (8 slides); and
  • Conclusion.

Transcript: Environmental Hazard Analysis

Introduction

Hi, everyone, and welcome to the Safety Artisan. Today, we’re going to be talking about Environmental Hazard Analysis – A big topic! And I’m covering this as part of the series on the System Safety Engineering Standard – Mil. Standard 882E. But it doesn’t really matter what standard we are using the topic is still relevant.

Environmental Hazard Analysis is a big topic because we’ll cover everything, not just hazards. At the end of this session, you should be able to enjoy three benefits. First of all, you should know how to approach Environmental hazard analysis from:

  • The point of view of the requirements,
  • The Hazard Analysis itself (the process), and
  • Some national and international variations in the English-speaking world.

So, you should know how to do the basics and also to recognize when maybe you need to bring in a specialist.

But maybe most important of all, number three is you should have the confidence to be able to get started. So I’m hoping that this session is really going to help you get started, know what you can do, and then maybe recognize when you need to bring in some specialist help or go and seek some further information.

As you’ll see, it’s a big, complex subject. I can get you started today, but that’s all I can do in one session. And in fact, I think that’s all anyone can do in one session. Anyway, let’s get on with it and see what we’ve got.

Environmental Hazard Analysis, Mil-Std-882E Task 210

Environmental Hazard Analysis, which is Task 210 under Mil. Standard 882E. So let’s look at what we’re going to talk about today.

Topics for this Session

And you’ll see why it’s going to be quite a lengthy session. I think it will last an hour because we’re going to go through the Purpose and Task Description of Environmental Hazard Analysis as set out in the Mil. Standard. And it says seven-plus slides because there are seven mainstream slides plus some illustrations in there as well. Then we’ve got a couple of slides each on Documentation, Hazardous Materials or HAZMAT, and Contracting. Then eight slides of Commentary and this is the major value add because I’ll be talking about applying Environmental Hazard Analysis in a US, UK, and Australian jurisdiction under the different laws, which I have some experience of.

I worked closely with environmental specialists on the Eurofighter Typhoon project, and I’ve also worked closely with the same specialists on US programs which had been bought by different countries. And then finally, I’ve been closely involved in a major environmental – or safety and environmental – project here in Australia. So I’ve been exposed and learned the hard way about how things work or don’t work here in Australia. So I’ve got some relevant experience to share with you, as well as some learned material to share with you. And then a little Conclusion, because I say this will take us an hour so there’s quite a lot of material to cover. So, let’s get right on with it.

EHA

So the purpose of Environmental Hazards Analysis, or EHA, as it says, is to support design development decisions. Now all of the 882 tasks are meant to do this, but actually, the wording in Task 210 is the clearest of all of them. Really makes it explicit what we’re trying to do, which is excellent.

So we’re going to identify hazards throughout the life cycle – cradle to grave, whatever system it is. We’re going to document and record those hazards and their leading particulars within the Hazard Tracking System or Hazard Log, as we more often call it. We’re going to manage the hazards using the same system safety process in Section Four as we use for safety. This is the process that you will have heard in the other lessons that I’ve given. And very often under 882, Safety and Environmental Hazards are considered together. There are pros and cons with that approach, but nevertheless, a lot of the work is common. We’ll see why later on.

In this American standard, it says we are to provide specific data to support the National Environmental Policy Act and executive order requirements. So the NEPA is an American piece of legislation and therefore I use this color blue to indicate anything that’s an American-specific requirement. So if you’re not operating in America, you’ll need to find the equivalent to manage to and to comply with. Moving on…

…see the full transcript here (TBD).

Links: Environmental Hazard Analysis

The links mentioned in the video are here:

You can find a free pdf of the System Safety Engineering Standard, Mil-Std-882E, here.

Meet the Author

Learn safety engineering with me, an industry professional with 25 years of experience, I have:

•Worked on aircraft, ships, submarines, ATMS, trains, and software;

•Tiny programs to some of the biggest (Eurofighter, Future Submarine);

•In the UK and Australia, on US and European programs;

•Taught safety to hundreds of people in the classroom, and thousands online;

•Presented on safety topics at several international conferences.

Categories
Mil-Std-882E Safety Analysis

System of Systems Hazard Analysis

In this full-length (38-minute) session, The Safety Artisan looks at System of Systems Hazard Analysis, or SoSHA, which is Task 209 in Mil-Std-882E. SoSHA analyses collections of systems, which are often put together to create a new capability, which is enabled by human brokering between the different systems. We explore the aim, description, and contracting requirements of this Task, and an extended example to illustrate SoSHA. (We refer to other lessons for special techniques for Human Factors analysis.)

This is the seven-minute demo version of the full 38-minute video.
buy the lesson

System of Systems Hazard Analysis: Topics

  • System of Systems (SoS) HA Purpose;
  • Task Description (2 slides);
  • Documentation (2 slides);
  • Contracting (2 slides);
  • Example (7 slides); and
  • Summary.

Transcript: System of Systems Hazard Analysis

Introduction

Hello everyone and welcome to the Safety Artisan. I’m Simon and today we’re going to be talking about System of Systems Hazard Analysis – a bit of a mouthful that. What does it actually mean? Well, we shall see.

System of Systems Hazard Analysis

So, for Systems of Systems Hazard Analysis, we’re using task 209 as the description of what to do taken from a military standard, 882E. But to be honest, it doesn’t really matter whether you’re doing a military system or a civil system, whatever it might be – if you’ve got a system of systems, then this will help you to do it.

Topics for this Session

So, we look at the purpose of system of systems. By the way, if you’re wondering what that is what I’m talking about is when we take different things that we’ve developed elsewhere, e.g. platforms, electronic systems, whatever it might be, and we put them together. Usually, with humans gluing the system together somewhere, it must be said, to make it all tick and fit together.

Then we want this collection of systems to do something new, to give us some new capability, which we didn’t have before. So, that’s what I’m talking about when I say system of systems. I’ll show you an example – it’s the best way.

We’ve got a couple of slides on task description, a couple of slides or documentation, and a couple of slides on contracting. Task 209 has a very short task description, and therefore I’ve decided to go through an example. So, we’ve got seven slides of an example of a system of systems, safety case, and safety case report that I wrote. Hopefully, that will illustrate far better than just reading out the description. And that will also give us some issues that can emerge with systems of systems and I’ll summarize those at the end.

SOSHA Purpose

So, let’s get on. I’m going to call it the SOSHA for short; Systems of Systems Hazard Analysis. The purpose of the SOSHA, task 209, is to document or perform and document the analysis of the system of systems and identify unique system of systems hazards. So, things we don’t get from each system in isolation. This task is going to produce special requirements to deal with these hazards, which otherwise would not exist. Until we put the things together and start using them for something new – We’ve not done this before…

…see the full transcript here.

End: System of Systems Hazard Analysis

So, that is the end of the presentation and it just remains for me to say thanks very much for watching and listening. It’s been good to spend some time with you and I look forward to talking to you next time about environmental analysis, which is Task 210 in the military standard … until then, goodbye.

Meet the Author

Learn safety engineering with me, an industry professional with 25 years of experience, I have:

•Worked on aircraft, ships, submarines, ATMS, trains, and software;

•Tiny programs to some of the biggest (Eurofighter, Future Submarine);

•In the UK and Australia, on US and European programs;

•Taught safety to hundreds of people in the classroom, and thousands online;

•Presented on safety topics at several international conferences.

Categories
Mil-Std-882E Safety Analysis

Health Hazard Analysis

In this full-length (55-minute) session, The Safety Artisan looks at Health Hazard Analysis, or HHA, which is Task 207 in Mil-Std-882E. I explore the aim, description, and contracting requirements of this complex Task. It covers: physical, chemical & biological hazards; Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT); ergonomics, aka Human Factors; the Operational Environment; and non/ionizing radiation. I will outline how to implement Task 207 in compliance with Australian WHS. (See also other lessons for specific tools and techniques, such as Human Factors analysis methods.)

This is the seven-minute-long demo. The full version is a 55-minute-long whopper!
get the ‘workplace hazard analysis’ course here

Health Hazard Analysis: Topics

  • Task 207 Purpose;
  • Task Description;
  • ‘A Health Hazard is…’;
  • ‘HHA Shall provide Information…’;
  • HAZMAT;
  • Ergonomics;
  • Operating Environment;
  • Radiation; and
  • Commentary.

Health Hazard Analysis: Transcript

Introduction

Hello, everyone, and welcome to the Safety Artisan. I’m Simon, your host, and today we are talking about health hazard analysis.

Task 207: Health Hazard Analysis

This is Task 207 in the Mil. standard, 882E approach, which is targeted for defense systems, but you will see it used elsewhere. The principles that we’re going to talk about today are widely applicable. So, you could use this standard for other things if you wish.

Topics for this Session

We’ve got a big session today so I’m going to plough straight on. We’re going to cover the purpose of the task; and the description; the task helpfully defines what a health hazard is; and says what health hazard analysis, or HHA, shall provide in terms of information. We talk about three specialist subjects – hazardous materials or hazmat, ergonomics, and operating environment. Also, radiation is covered, as another specialist area. Then we’ll have some commentary from myself.

Now the requirements of the standard of this task are so extensive that for the first time, I won’t be quoting all of them, word for word. I’ve actually had to chop out some material, but I’ll explain that when we come to it. We can work with that but it is quite a demanding task, as we’ll see.

Task Purpose

Let’s look at the task purpose. We are to perform and document a health hazard analysis to identify human health hazards and evaluate what it says, materials and processes using materials, etc, that might cause harm to people, and to propose measures to eliminate the hazards or reduce the associated risks. In many respects, it’s a standard 882-type approach. We’re going to do all the usual things. However, as we shall see it, we’re going to do quite a lot more on this one.

Task Description #1

So, task description. We need to evaluate the potential effects resulting from exposure to hazards, and this is something I will come back to again and again. It’s very easy dealing in this area, particularly with hazardous materials, to get hung up on every little tiny amount of potentially hazardous material that is in the system or in a particular environment and I’ve seen this done to death so many times. I’ve seen it overdone in the UK when COSHH, a control of substance hazardous to health, came in in the military. We went bonkers about this. We did risk assessments up the yin-yang for stuff that we just did not need to worry about. Stuff that was in every office up and down the land. So, we need to be sensible about doing this, and I’ll keep coming back to that.

So, we need to do as it says; identification assessment, characterization, control, and communicate assets in the workplace environment. We need to follow a systems approach, considering “What’s the total impact of all these potential stressors on the human operator or maintainer?” Again, I come from a maintenance background. The operator often gets lots of attention because a) because if the operator stuffs up, you very often end up with a very nasty accident where lots of people get hurt. So, that’s a legitimate focus for a human operator of a system.

But also, a lot of organizations, the executive management tend to be operators because that’s how the organization evolves. So, sometimes you can have an emphasis on operations and maintenance and support, and other things get ignored because they’re not sexy enough to the senior management. That’s a bad reason for not looking at stuff. We need to think about the big picture, not just the people who are in control…

…get the full transcript here.

End: Health Hazard Analysis

So, that is the end of the session. Thank you very much for listening. And all that remains for me to say is thanks very much for supporting the work of the Safety Artisan and tuning into this video. And I wish you every success in your work now and in the future. Goodbye.

Meet the Author

Learn safety engineering with me, an industry professional with 25 years of experience, I have:

•Worked on aircraft, ships, submarines, ATMS, trains, and software;

•Tiny programs to some of the biggest (Eurofighter, Future Submarine);

•In the UK and Australia, on US and European programs;

•Taught safety to hundreds of people in the classroom, and thousands online;

•Presented on safety topics at several international conferences.

Categories
Mil-Std-882E Safety Analysis

Operating & Support Hazard Analysis

In this full-length session, I look at Operating & Support Hazard Analysis, or O&SHA, which is Task 206 in Mil-Std-882E. I explore Task 206’s aim, description, scope, and contracting requirements.

There’s value-adding commentary, which explains O&SHA: how to use it with other tasks; how to apply it effectively on different products; and some of the pitfalls to avoid. This is based on my 25 years in system safety and my background in operations and maintenance.

I also refer to other lessons for specific tools and techniques, such as Human Factors analysis methods.

This is the seven-minute-long demo. The full version is about 35 minutes long.
Get the ‘workplace hazard analysis’ course

Operating & Support Hazard Analysis: Topics

  • Task 206 Purpose:
    • To identify and assess hazards introduced by O&S activities and procedures;
    • To evaluate the adequacy of O&S procedures, facilities, processes, and equipment used to mitigate risks associated with identified hazards.
  • Task Description (six slides);
  • Reporting (two slides);
  • Contracting (two slides); and
  • Commentary (four slides).

Operating & Support Hazard Analysis: Transcript

Introduction

Hello everyone and welcome to the Safety Artisan; home of safety engineering training. I’m Simon and today we’re going to be carrying on with our series on Mil. Standard 882E system safety engineering.

Operating & Support Hazard Analysis

Today, we’re going to be moving on to the subject of operating and support hazard analysis. This is, as it says, task 206 under the standard. Operating and support hazard analysis, I’ll just call it O&S or OSHA (also O&SHA) for short. Unfortunately, that will confuse people if I call OSHA. Let’s call it O&S.

Topics for this Session

The purpose of O&S hazard analysis is to identify and assess hazards introduced by those activities and procedures and to evaluate the adequacy of O&S procedures, processes, equipment, facilities, etc, to mitigate risks that have been already identified. A twofold task but a very big task. And as we’ll see, we’ve got lots of slides today on task description, and reporting, contracting, and commentary. As always, I present the full text as is of the task, which is copyright free, but I’m only going to talk about the things that are important. So, we’re not going to go through every little clause of the standard that would be pointless.

O&S Hazard Analysis (T206)

Let’s get started with the purpose. As we’ve already said, it’s to identify and assess those hazards which are introduced by operational and support activities and procedures and evaluate their adequacy. So, we’re looking at operating the system, whatever it may be- And of course, this is a military standard, so we assume a military system, but not all military systems are weapon systems by any means. Not all are physical systems.

There may be inventory management systems, management information systems, all kinds of stuff. So, does operating those systems and just supporting them, maintaining them are resupplying them, disposing of them, etc – Does that create any hazards or introduce any hazards? And how do we mitigate? That’s the purpose of the task.

Task Description (T206) #1

Let’s move on to the task description. Again, we’re assuming a contractor is performing the analysis, but that’s not necessarily the case. For this task, this actually says this typically begins during engineering and manufacturing development, or EMD.  So, we’re assuming an American style lifecycle for a big system and EMD comes after concept and requirements development. So, we are beginning to move into the very expensive stage of development for a system where we begin to commit serious money.

It’s suggesting that O&SHA can wait until then which is fine in general unless you’ve identified any particularly novel hazards that will need to be dealt with earlier on. As it says, it should build on design hazard analyses, but we’ll also talk about the case later on when there is no design hazard analyses. And the O&SHA shall identify requirements or alternatives or eliminating hazards, mitigating risks, etc. This is one of those tasks where the human is very important – In fact, dominant to be honest. Both as a source of hazards and the potential victim of the associated risks. A lot of human-centric stuff going on here.

Task Description (T206) #2

As always, we’re going to think about the system configurations. We’re going to think about what we’re going to do with the system and the environment that we’re going to do it in. So, a familiar triad and I know I keep banging on about this, but this really is fundamental to bounding and therefore evaluating safety. We’ve got to know what the system is, what we’re doing with it, and the environment in which we’re doing it. Let’s move on…

Click here to see the full transcript.

End: Operating & Support Hazard Analysis

So, that is the end of the lesson and it just remains for me to say thank you very much for your time and for listening. And I look forward to seeing you again soon. Cheers.

Meet the Author

Learn safety engineering with me, an industry professional with 25 years of experience, I have:

•Worked on aircraft, ships, submarines, ATMS, trains, and software;

•Tiny programs to some of the biggest (Eurofighter, Future Submarine);

•In the UK and Australia, on US and European programs;

•Taught safety to hundreds of people in the classroom, and thousands online;

•Presented on safety topics at several international conferences.

Categories
Mil-Std-882E Safety Analysis System Safety

System Requirements Hazard Analysis

In this 45-minute session, I’m looking at System Requirements Hazard Analysis, or SRHA, which is Task 203 in the Mil-Std-882E standard. I will explore Task 203’s aim, description, scope, and contracting requirements.  SRHA is an important and complex task, which must be done on several levels to succeed.  This video explains the issues and discusses how to perform SRHA well.

This is the seven-minute demo video, the full version is 40 minutes’ long.
buy the full-length video here

Topics: System Requirements Hazard Analysis

  • Task 202 Purpose;
  • Task Description:
    • Determine Requirements;
    • Incorporate Requirements; and
    • Assess the compliance of the System.
  • Contracting;
  • Section 4.2 (of the standard); and
  • Commentary.

Transcript

Introduction

Hello and welcome to the Safety Artisan, where you will find professional, pragmatic and impartial advice on all things system, safety and related.

System Requirements Hazard Analysis

Today, we’re talking about system requirements hazard analysis. And this is part of our series on Mil. Standard 882E, and this one is Task 203. And it’s a very widely used system safety engineering standard. Its influence is found in many places, not just in military procurement programs.

Topics for this Session

We’re looking at this task, which is very important, possibly the most important task of all, as we’ll see. I’m talking about the purpose of the task, which is word-for-word from the task description itself.

We’re talking about in the task description, the three aims of this task, which is to determine or work out requirements, incorporate them, and then assess the compliance of the system with those requirements, because, of course, it may not be a simple read-across. We’ve got six slides on that. That’s most of the task.

Then we’ve just got one slide on contracting, which if you’ve seen any of the others in this series, will seem very familiar. We’ve got a bit of a chat about Section 4.2 from the standard and some commentary, and the reason for that will become clear. Let’s crack on!

System Requirements Hazard Analysis

Task 203.1, the purpose of Task 203 is to perform and document a System Requirements Hazard Analysis or SRHA. And as we’ve already said, the purpose of this is to determine the design requirements. We’re going to focus on design rather than buying stuff off the shelf – we’ll talk about the implications of that a little bit later.

Design requirements to eliminate or reduce hazards and risks, incorporate those requirements, into a says, into the documentation, but what it should say is incorporate risk reduction measures into the system itself and then document it.

Finally, to assess compliance of the system with these requirements. Then it says the SRHA address addresses all life-cycle phases, so not just meant for you to think about certain phases of the program. What are the requirements through life for the system? And in all modes. Whether it’s in operation, whether it’s in maintenance or refit, whether it’s being repaired or disposed of, whatever it might be.

Task Description #1

The first of six slides is the task description. I’m using more than one colour because there’s some quite a lot of important points packed quite tightly together in this description.

We’re assuming that the contractor performs and documents this SRHA. The customer needs to do a lot of work here before ever gets near a contractor. More on that later. We need to determine system design requirements to eliminate hazards or reduce associated risks.

Two things here. By identifying applicable policies, regulations, standards, etc. More on that later. And analyzing identified hazards. So, requirements to perform the analysis as well as to simply just state ‘We want a system to do this and not to do that’. So, we need to put some requirements to say ‘Here’s what we want analyzed maybe to what degree? And why.’ is always helpful.

Task Description #2

Breaking those breaking those two requirements down.

Part a. We identify applicable requirements by reviewing our military and industry standards and specs, and historical documentation of systems that are similar or with a system that we’re replacing, perhaps. It’s assumed that the US Department of Defense is the customer, the ultimate customer. So, the ultimate customer’s requirements, including whatever they’ve said about standard ways of mitigating certain common risks.

The system performance spec, that’s your functional performance spec or whatever you want to call it. Other system design requirements and documents – a bit of a catchall there. And applicable federal, military, state, and local regulations.

This is a US standard. It’s a federated state, much like Australia and lots of modern states, even the UK. There are variations in law across England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. They’re not great, but they do exist.

And in the US and Australia, those differences are greater. And it says applicable executive orders. Executive orders, they’re not law, but they are what the executive arm of the U.S. government has issued, and international agreements. There are a lot of words in there – have a look at the different statements that are in white, blue, and yellow.

Basically, from international agreements right down to whatever requirements may be applicable, they all need to be looked at and accounted for. So, there’s a huge amount of work there for someone to do. I’ll come back to who that someone should be later.

End: System Requirements Hazard Analysis

You can find a free pdf of the System Safety Engineering Standard, Mil-Std-882E, here.

Meet the Author

Learn safety engineering with me, an industry professional with 25 years of experience, I have:

•Worked on aircraft, ships, submarines, ATMS, trains, and software;

•Tiny programs to some of the biggest (Eurofighter, Future Submarine);

•In the UK and Australia, on US and European programs;

•Taught safety to hundreds of people in the classroom, and thousands online;

•Presented on safety topics at several international conferences.

Categories
Mil-Std-882E Safety Analysis

System Hazard Analysis with Mil-Std-882E

In this 45-minute session, I look at System Hazard Analysis with Mil-Std-882E. SHA is Task 205 in the Standard. I explore Task 205’s aim, description, scope, and contracting requirements.

I also provide commentary, based on working with this Standard since 1996, which explains SHA. How to use it to complement Sub-System Hazard Analysis (SSHA, Task 204). How to get the maximum benefits from your System Safety Program.

Using Task 205 effectively is not just a matter of applying it in number order with the other Tasks. We need to use it within the Systems Engineering framework. That means using it top-down, to set requirements, and bottom-up to verify that they are met.

This is the seven-minute-long demo. The full video is 47 minutes long.
get the course ‘system safety in
systems engineering’: click here

System Hazard Analysis: Topics

  • Task 205 Purpose [differences vs. 204];
    • Verify subsystem compliance;
    • ID hazards (subsystem interfaces and faults);
    • ID hazards (integrated system design); and
    • Recommend necessary actions.
  • Task Description (five slides);
  • Reporting;
  • Contracting; and
  • Commentary.

Transcript: System Hazard Analysis with Mil-Std-882E

Introduction

Hello, everyone, and welcome to the Safety Artisan, where you will find professional, pragmatic, and impartial safety training resources and videos. I’m Simon, your host, and I’m recording this on the 13th of April 2020. And given the circumstances when I record this, I hope this finds you all well.

System Hazard Analysis Task 205

Let’s get on to our topic for today, which is System Hazard Analysis. Now, system hazard analysis is, as you may know, Task 205 in the Mil-Std-882E system safety standard.

Topics for this Session

What we’re going to cover in this session is purpose, task description, reporting, contracting, and some commentary – although I’ll be making commentary all the way through. Going back to the top, the yellow highlighting with this (and with Task 204), I’m using the yellow highlighting to indicate differences between 205 and 204 because they are superficially quite similar. And then I’m using underlining to emphasize those things that I want to bring to your attention and emphasize.

Within Task 205, Purpose. We’ve got four purpose slides for this one. Verify subsistent compliance and recommend necessary actions – fourth one there. And then in the middle of the sandwich, we’ve got the identification of hazards, both between the subsystem interfaces and faults from the subsystem propagating upwards to the overall system and identifying hazards in the integrated system design. So, quite a different emphasis to 204, which was thinking about subsystems in isolation. We’ve got five slides of task description, a couple on reporting, one on contracting – nothing new there – and several commentaries.

System Requirements Hazard Analysis (T205)

Let’s get straight on with it. The purpose, as we’ve already said, there is a three-fold purpose here; Verify system compliance, hazard identification, and recommended actions, and then, as we can see in the yellow, the identifying previously unidentified hazards is split into two. Looking at subsystem interfaces and faults and the integration of the overall system design. And you can see the yellow bit, that’s different from 204 where we are taking this much higher-level view, taking an inter-subsystem view and then an integrated view.

Task Description (T205) #1

On to the task description. The contract has got to do it and document, as usual, looking at hazards and mitigations, or controls, in the integrated system design, including software and human interface. We must come onto that later.

All the usual stuff about we’ve got to include COTS, GOTS, GFE, and NDI. So, even if stuff is not being developed, if we’re putting together a jigsaw system from existing pieces, we’ve still got to look at the overall thing. And as with 204, we go down to the underlined text at the bottom of the slide, areas to consider. Think about performance, and degradation of performance, functional failures, timing and design errors, defects, inadvertent functioning – that classic functional failure analysis that we’ve seen before.

Again, while conducting this analysis, we’ve got to include human beings as an integral component of the system, receiving inputs, and initiating outputs.  Human factors were included in this standard from long ago…

The End

You can find a free pdf of the System Safety Engineering Standard, Mil-Std-882E, here.

Learn safety engineering with me, an industry professional with 25 years of experience, I have:

•Worked on aircraft, ships, submarines, ATMS, trains, and software;

•Tiny programs to some of the biggest (Eurofighter, Future Submarine);

•In the UK and Australia, on US and European programs;

•Taught safety to hundreds of people in the classroom, and thousands online;

•Presented on safety topics at several international conferences.

Categories
Mil-Std-882E Safety Analysis software safety

Functional Hazard Analysis with Mil-Std-882E

In this video, I look at Functional Hazard Analysis with Mil-Std-882E (FHA, which is Task 208 in Mil-Std-882E). FHA analyses software, complex electronic hardware, and human interactions. I explore the aim, description, and contracting requirements of this Task, and provide extensive commentary on it. (I refer to other lessons for special techniques for software safety and Human Factors.)

This video, and the related webinar ‘Identify & Analyze Functional Hazards’, deal with an important topic. Programmable electronics and software now run so much of our modern world. They control many safety-related products and services. If they go wrong, they can hurt people.

I’ve been working with software-intensive systems since 1994. Functional hazards are often misunderstood, or overlooked, as they are hidden. However, the accidents that they can cause are very real. If you want to expand your analysis skills beyond just physical hazards, I will show you how.

This is the seven-minute demo; the full version is 40 minutes long.
clikc here to get the course:
Identify & analyze functional hazards

Functional Hazard Analysis: Context

So how do we analyze software safety?

Before we even start, we need to identify those system functions that may impact safety. We can do this by performing a Functional Failure Analysis (FFA) of all system requirements that might credibly lead to human harm.

An FFA looks at functional requirements (the system should do ‘this’ or ‘that’) and examines what could go wrong. What if:

  • The function does not work when needed?
  • The function works when not required?
  • The function works incorrectly? (There may be more than one version of this.)

(A variation of this technique is explained here.)

If the function could lead to a hazard then it is marked for further analysis. This is where we apply the FHA, Task 208.

Functional Hazard Analysis: The Lesson

Topics: Functional Hazard Analysis

  • Task 208 Purpose;
  • Task Description;
  • Update & Reporting
  • Contracting; and
  • Commentary.

Transcript: Functional Hazard Analysis

Introduction

Hello, everyone, and welcome to the Safety Artisan; Home of Safety Engineering Training. I’m Simon and today we’re going to be looking at how you analyze the safety of functions of complex hardware and software. We’ll see what that’s all about in just a second.

Functional Hazard Analysis

I’m just going to get to the right page. This, as you can see, functional hazard analysis is Task 208 in Mil. Standard 882E.

Topics for this Session

What we’ve got for today: we have three slides on the purpose of functional hazard analysis, and these are all taken from the standard. We’ve got six slides of task description. That’s the text from the standard plus we’ve got two tables that show you how it’s done from another part of the standard, not from Task 208. Then we’ve got update and recording, another two slides. Contracting, two slides. And five slides of commentary, which again include a couple of tables to illustrate what we’re talking about.

Functional Purpose HA #1

What we’re going to talk about is, as I say, functional hazard analysis. So, first of all, what’s the purpose of it? In classic 882 style, Task 208 is to perform this functional hazard analysis on a system or subsystem or more than one. Again, as with all the other tasks, we use it to identify and classify system functions and the safety consequences of functional failure or malfunction. In other words, hazards.

Now, I should point out at this stage that the standard is focused on malfunctions of the system. In the real world, lots of software-intensive systems cause accidents that have killed people, even when they’re functioning as intended. That’s one of the shortcomings of this Military Standard – it focuses on failure. But even if something performs as specified, either:

  • The specification might be wrong, or
  • The system might do something that the human operator does not expects.

Mil-Std-882E just doesn’t recognize that. So, it’s not very good in that respect. However, bearing that in mind, let’s carry on with looking at the task.

Functional HA Purpose #2

We’re going to look at these consequences in terms of severity – severity only, we’ll come back to that – to identify what they call safety-critical functions, safety-critical items, safety-related functions, and safety-related items. And a quick word on that, I hate the term ‘safety-critical’ because it suggests a sort of binary “Either it’s safety-critical. Yes. Or it’s not safety-critical. No.” And lots of people take that to mean if it’s “safety-critical, no,” then it’s got nothing to do with safety. They don’t recognize that there’s a sliding scale between maximum safety criticality and none whatsoever. And that’s led to a lot of bad thinking and bad behavior over the years where people do everything they can to pretend that something isn’t safety-related by saying, “Oh, it’s not safety-critical, therefore we don’t have to do anything.” And that kind of laziness kills people.

Anyway, moving on. So, we’ve got these SCFs, SCIs, SRFs, SRIs and they’re supposed to be allocated or mapped to a system design architecture. The presumption in this – the assumption in this task is that we’re doing early – We’ll see that later – and that system design, system architecture, is still up for grabs. We can still influence it.

COTS and MOTS Software

Often that is not the case these days. This standard was written many years ago when the military used to buy loads of bespoke equipment and have it all developed from new. That doesn’t happen anymore so much in the military and it certainly doesn’t happen in many other walks of life – But we’ll talk about how you deal with the realities later.

And they’re allocating these functions and these items of interest to hardware, software, and human interfaces. And I should point out, when we’re talking about all that, all these things are complex. Software is complex, human is complex, and we’re talking about complex hardware. So, we’re talking about components where you can’t just say, “Oh, it’s got a reliability of X, and that’s how often it goes wrong” because those types of simple components are only really subject to random failure, that’s not what we’re talking about here.

We’re talking about complex stuff where we’re talking about systematic failure dominating over random, simple hardware failure. So, that’s the focus of this task and what we’re talking about. That’s not explained in the standard, but that’s what’s going on.

Functional HA Purpose #3

Now, our third slide is on purpose; so, we use the FHA to identify the consequences of malfunction, functional failure, or lack of function. As I said just now, we need to do this as early as possible in the systems engineering process to enable us to influence the design. Of course, this is assuming that there is a system engineering process – that’s not always the case. We’ll talk about that at the end as well.

Also, we’re going to identify and document these functions and items and allocate and it says to partition them in the software design architecture. When we say partition, that’s jargon for separating them into independent functions. We’ll see the value of that later on. Then we’re going to identify requirements and constraints to put on the design team to say, “To achieve this allocation in this partitioning, this is what you must do and this is what you must not do”. So again, the assumption is we’re doing this early. There’s a significant amount of bespoke design yet to be done….

Then What?

Once the FFA has identified the required ‘Level or Rigor’, we need to translate that into a suitable software development standard. This might be:

  • RTCA DO-178C (also know as ED-12C) for civil aviation;
  • The US Joint Software System Safety Engineering Handbook (JSSEH) for military systems;
  • IEC 61508 (functional safety) for the process industry;
  • CENELEC-50128 for the rail industry; and
  • ISO 26262 for automotive applications.

Such standards use Safety Integrity Levels (SILs) or Development Assurance Levels (DALs) to enforce appropriate Levels of Rigor. You can learn about those in my course Principles of Safe Software Development.

Meet the Author

My name’s Simon Di Nucci. I’m a practicing system safety engineer, and I have been, for the last 25 years; I’ve worked in all kinds of domains, aircraft, ships, submarines, sensors, and command and control systems, and some work on rail air traffic management systems, and lots of software safety. So, I’ve done a lot of different things!