Philip's article is an important and timely exploration of an issue about which I feel very strongly, in an area where - despite all that has been achieved - there is still a gap in capability and maturity across the sector.
Making good and timely decisions requires experience and competence, which then gives people the confidence to not just make the decisions but also to seek advice and support when they are not completely sure.
Why do I fear there is a capability gap? Well, as well as the examples that Philip highlights and the fact that we have repeat causation incidents, the ORR’s RM3 (Risk Management Maturity Model) assessments indicate that although we have pockets of excellence, that is far from widespread.
When I became Chief Inspector of Railways, I set out a vision for the industry of "zero industry-caused fatalities on the path to zero harm". This was to be achieved through reaching the goal of excellence in Health and Safety and Asset Management.
To help achieve this, one has to know where dutyholders are. Therefore, we developed RM3. It tells us that although there has been strong performance in recent years, there is still some way to go, and incidents such as the tragedy at Croydon and others demonstrate the need for vigilance. They also demonstrate that we are not in a position of confidence that is sustainable. And the key to resolving that is enhancing Capability and Maturity across the sector.
In ORR’s latest annual health and safety report, I identified four key issues that the industry must focus on - all of them linked through Capability, Competency and Maturity. Examples of where we have not reached the necessary level in risk management are clearly identified in Philip's article. They are:
1. Maintaining a safe and sustainable infrastructure: For example, management of civil assets is a high priority for ORR. This is because of the age of the portfolio and its susceptibility to rapid deterioration in adverse weather. Initiating failure mechanisms are often difficult or impossible to detect by visual inspection, and some of the work that was planned has been deferred because of funding constraints. This puts added pressure on front line staff to make the right decisions.
2. Culture and occupational health: Although we see areas of excellent practice, the sector still has some way to go in developing its overall safety culture and management of health to achieve widespread excellence. Evidence shows that focusing on improving the health of the workforce not only leads to a more engaged workforce, but also to a stronger culture and a more efficient business. A renewed and greater focus on mental health is particularly important.
3. Managing change well: As well as growth continuing in some parts of the sector, during the past year a number of new franchises have been awarded that will lead to an increase in the number of services, as well as new rolling stock. This increases the inherent risk, which duty holders need to co-operate to mitigate. Again, maturity in managers is critical here. One way of achieving this is through the introduction of new technology and working practices. However, it is imperative that these changes are managed well. Sometimes they have not been, and that is why we still believe there is a capability and maturity gap across the sector.
4. Safety by Design ‘without gold plating’: As new strategic assets are introduced - whether a major infrastructure project, a rolling stock project or smaller enhancements - it is vital that the critical principles of excellent Safety by Design are employed by the sector. Philip identifies some instances where this has not been the case. Often standards are used as an excuse for a lack of managing risk in an effective and efficient way. To help the sector, we have refreshed our strategic risk chapter on the subject and included it in our Principles and Guidance documents.
So, how can we bridge the gap and achieve maturity?
1. Stronger leadership throughout organisations as development of managers across the industry is required. Devolution will help - but at the right pace, ensuring capability and maturity is built and maintained.
2. Structured continuous improvement using RM3 route-wide and across the train/track divide. Sharing good practice between TOCs and NR - as we saw happen in the Wessex Alliance.
3. Deliver the Industry Health and Safety strategy, including the work on Health and Wellbeing. Focus in particular on mental health, as that will lead to improvements in culture. The industry must assess its capability to deliver a high-quality health and safety strategy and (where necessary) plug any gaps that exist.
4. Learn to manage risk effectively, challenge the status quo, and innovate. Ensure all managers and engineers read Taking Safe Decisions and drive peer reviews . Also, they all need to read, digest, understand and use our Principles and Guidance documents.
5. Improve planning and collaboration to ensure all work is done as effectively as possible. Devolution should help, but it is important to understand there are trade-offs that need to be managed.
6. Improve engagement with the workforce, so that we are all pulling in the same direction. We cannot leave people isolated. They have fears and are unsure about change, so the industry must engage with them to help them take the next vital steps.
If we focus on these, each of us can make a real impact in terms of improving capability and maturity, and helping our industry become world-class - as well as ensuring the railway remains a vital component of all our lives, even for those who do not use it!
One of the hallmarks of a good leader is the way they
manage uncertainty, see the big picture and communicate a clear vision, so it should be no surprise that the key to making a good decision lies in leadership.
What’s often forgotten is that increasingly, this leadership doesn’t just come from the CEO or members of a dedicated leadership team. Leadership ability has to be nurtured in everyone throughout an organisation, so that decisions can be made confidently and efficiently - ‘no decision’ is usually a bad decision. We need to make sure we have a good supply of up-and-coming leaders for tomorrow’s railway.
Does this happen on Britain’s railways today? Probably not enough. How often do you hear that the retirement of another veteran has led to a gaping hole in an organisation’s capability or a loss of corporate memory? So as much as we need people who understand tomorrow’s problems and the outside world, we also need to make sure we retain and build on today’s talent in the bread-and-butter of running a railway.
Philip Haigh is absolutely right, however: the key to getting to grips with this uncertainty is a systematic approach to understanding the risk, and horizon scanning. Consider how industry’s sustained focus on some types of safety risk has paid off. Signals passed at danger, train accident risk and level crossings are examples where the ‘Taking Safe Decisions’ model has been applied to good effect with tangible, visible and quantifiable results. Risk has either been reduced or is managed more effectively to avoid incidents.
As important as addressing genuine risk is the need to avoid investing time, effort and money where it isn’t needed. Again, this is where the ‘Taking Safe Decisions’ model can help, as it steers an organisation to consider responses that are proportionate to the issues at stake. This is critical to ensuring the railway retains good safety performance and reliability while still reducing costs.
The rail industry’s Data and Risk Strategy is designed to take us to the next level in response-time. The digital revolution has led to a proliferation of data, and is producing the capabilities and tools to turn it into actionable intelligence for the rail industry.
In the future, companies could be analysing real-time information in a ‘safety control centre’, acting on alarms with urgent responses in the field. Systems will also support rapid tactical analysis of similar combinations of weaknesses in safety defences, by rapidly and intelligently filtering aggregated risk, asset and safety control data to quickly target a broader response. They will also support the robust analysis of investment options to strengthen safety where necessary, rapidly developing robust investment cases based on clear analysis of the balance between cost, performance and safety to support timely management decisions.
While the ‘Taking Safe Decisions’ model can also be adapted to consider other types of risk, it is important to remember that safety is a business risk. A poorly managed risk about safety or sustainability, or reliability or reputation, will ultimately manifest itself as a cost in pounds sterling and potentially jeopardise the overall ability to do business. And it’s a safe bet that an organisation which does safety well probably runs its overall business well, with a close eye on its people, culture, revenue, relationships, reputation and future potential.
It’s also true that risks are rarely mitigated or managed via blind adherence to standards. Legislation is not prescriptive, and the state does not specify requirements in detail. Instead, organisations need to do more thinking themselves, to properly consider how they will meet their obligations.
Standards help, as they provide industry-agreed best practice and avoid the need to reinvent the wheel every time, but careful thought is still required. There are advantages on offer - there is more flexibility which encourages people to think for themselves, moving away from a box-ticking mentality and taking full ownership of their risks. This is something which ORR is very much pushing for.
RSSB, with its expertise in this area, continues to work hard and is always available to help the industry to better understand and manage the complexity of the regulatory landscape, and the use of standards as the industry organisations take decisions.
We cannot pretend that the regulatory world is simple, or just hope it to be so to solve all their problems. The industry needs to have the capability to work with this inherent complexity because, although difficult, it also offers greater flexibility, choice and benefits than a simple rigid regime, if handled correctly. Better understanding in this area, including early engagement with RSSB, offers great opportunities to the industry - including proportionate and correct application of standards.
Correct application of standards to discharge legal obligations also means recognising where industry and its supply chain has choices that can be exercised to design and implement optimal and proportionate solutions, while still being compliant with the law.
It does take financial and business acumen to do this, though, and the Hansford Review is likely to corroborate the instincts of many about what it’s like to do business with the railways. However, we do need to reinforce these business and strategic planning competences across the whole supply chain and throughout the railway as a whole, not just in one part.
It is particularly important that with Brexit, which brings extra uncertainty and issues of its own, the railway is truly open for business and gets past the mutual distrust that can characterise the railway family, and which seems to prompt an industry review at every turn. If we can show we understand business better, maybe others will strive to understand the railway better?
Philip’s article also reveals the importance of horizon scanning. This is an area where our members and the ORR have asked us to put more emphasis, to use our data, research and analytical capabilities to provide more thought leadership on the issues that are likely to have an impact on rail. Some of this we’ve always done, but we can afford to be bolder and provide a more informed interpretation of what this all means to them, and you’ll see more of that from this autumn onwards.
What I would add is that sound decision-making and risk management is also aided by the industry working together, and sharing both the burden and the fruits of the effort involved. At RSSB we strive to help in this area, providing the thinking space for industry to meet and agree shared approaches to issues, supported by our own experts and access to accumulated data and knowledge.
Twenty-first century risk management isn’t about one person or one process, it’s about everyone having the right approach and competence to manage risk with confidence. By supporting us and the work we do, they will ultimately reap a reward that shows up on their balance sheets.
