Integrated Data Management for handling hazard of change situations:
a sample case of operational implementation
M. Cassania*, V. Licataa, D. Baranzinib, S. Corriganb, E. De Grandisc, A. Ottomanielloc,
a
KITE Solutions, Laveno Mombello (VA), Italy
b
Trinity College Dublin, APRG-School of Psychology, Dublin, Ireland
c
Air Dolomiti, Safety Department, Dossobuono di Villafranca, Verona, Italy
Abstract: The ability to manage organizational change is crucial to ensure a permanent and high level of
performance of safety critical organizations. There is the need to go beyond implementation of the basic
concepts and methodological approaches of Preliminary and System Hazard Assessment coupled with sound
Human Factors analysis. Changes are the prototypical case of need of such a deeper analysis that becomes
consequently a prospective type of evaluation of risk. In addition, the Company management attitude
towards the implementation of a prospective assessment to the risks associated with relevant changes within
an organization is equally necessary. All these aspects are considered part of a “classical” safety assessment
method. A number of innovative elements have to be developed in order to adequately account for changes.
In this perspective the theoretical framework that sustains this approach is named LIFE (Lean Integrated
Forecast Estimator). In brief, LIFE is a prospective change assessment method (evolution of prospective
safety approaches) that will verify and model the impact of future change events that will be affecting a
system and will EU funded MASCA Project. In this paper, two major aspects are discussed: 1) the process of
implementation of the LIFE process of analyzing the risk associated with change within an organization, by
means of a support tool that guides the analyst in applying the methodology; and 2) a case study of operation
implementation that considers a relevant change in operations planned by an air carrier and the preliminary
stages of implementation of the safety assessment of the “change”, according to the proposed novel
approach.
Keywords: Aviation Safety, Safety Management System, Management of Change, Human Factors
1. INTRODUCTION
Aviation organizations experience permanent changes due to expansion, contraction, introduction of new
equipment, new procedures. In particular, commercial competition, driven partly by the ‘low-cost’ business
model, is driving aviation organizations globally to change the way in which they do business, cutting costs
and developing a leaner enterprise. The low-cost carriers, relatively new entrants to the business, grew their
companies around this business model. Older organizations (including the ‘legacy carriers’) do not have the
opportunity to build their organization from scratch – therefore they have to change an established stable
system with its strong cultural and institutional supports, without compromising core operational goals. This
change can take different forms including downsizing, consolidation, bankruptcy and new business
formation.
At the same time, in the operational sector, new requirements for regulation coming from ICAO (2009)
demand that all aviation organizations develop a safety management system, requiring transparency in the
development of internal organizational processes. The requirements for safety management require a
proactive strategic approach, anticipating risks and demonstrating a capacity to keep safety at the centre of
change that is driven by commercial competition, and ensuring that safety evidence itself becomes an
effective driver of change, even in the ‘ultra-safe’ system that aviation has become. Nevertheless,
organizations find it difficult to integrate their different functional units in a common programme of change;
there is no clear consensus about what it means to be ‘proactive’; there is no integrated framework for
managing all the human related functions in an operational system; influential change programmes like lean
enterprise and six sigma have no systemic methodologies for managing complex human functions in
systems. Embedding the Lean way of working into the culture can take several years and requires constant
support and guidance from management.
Changes can introduce new hazards, may impact the appropriateness and effectiveness of risk mitigation
And therefore an objective of change is to reduce the risk the organization faces in meeting its strategic
challenges, comparing current performance to projected demands. Therefore it falls back into highlighting
the need to support a culture of change and change management which is an issue Human and Organizational
factors approach have often confronted in the past.
2. THE LIFE APPROACH
2.1 The LIFE concept
A number of innovative elements have to be developed in order to adequately account for changes. The
change analysts has to evaluate and estimate the degree of safety that may be affected by the change under
study; the ability or degree of resilience of the organization in order to adapt to the aspects that may not be
imagined by the safety analyst a-priory and may still result from the change, etc. The theoretical framework
that sustains this approach is named LIFE (Lean Integrated Forecast Estimator). In brief, LIFE is a
prospective change assessment method (evolution of prospective safety approaches) that will verify and
model the impact of future change events that will be affecting a system and will generate change solutions
accordingly.
2.2 The LIFE method in brief
The LIFE is a step by step procedure dedicated to the analysis of future states, or changes, under with a
company or organization might be exposed to. From this analysis the most likely hazards “potentially
generated” by such upcoming changes will be prioritized, shortlisted and assessed for their prevention of
minimization. Within this rationale the following key steps are considered and described in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1 The LIFE process
In general a model of a change, called Expected Model of Change (EMC) (Figure 1) has to be developed. It
defines the type of upcoming type Change from an operational or business point of view. The EMC will be
studied via dedicated workshops to identify the type of potential system related hazards triggered (directly or
indirectly caused) by the occurrence of the EMC interfacing somehow with the company or organization. If
such hazards, called EMC hazards, will be shortlisted as serious threat, then a dedicated simulation exercise
will be generated to verify hazard reductions in terms of frequency and/or severity (as shown by the Step 6 in
Figure 1). From this assessment and simulation of future risk states (determined by the expected change), a
pool of requirements will be generated and deployed to anticipate a set of possible responses if the EMC will
become reality. In this perspective a company or organization time to adapt to the change is reduced by
anticipating a number of pre-set response that will ensure more organizational resiliency and capability. An
organizational readiness to anticipated changes is in place. Such new capability is called anticipatory
resilience.
Overall, such theoretical framework would give leverage to any change oriented risk analysis. In particular a
case study will be presented here below.
2.2 LIFE Step-by-Step
The LIFE methodology accounts for a number of prospective change activities typically described in an
overall approach of safety assessment of change management (McDonald et al, 2012). Such activities are
grouped into a number of steps. Table 1 below describes the basic key activities per each of the 10 steps of
the LIFE operation.
Table 1. Basic activities of the LIFE operation
LIFE Steps
Key actions in LIFE
Competency requirements
STEP 1
Expected Model of Change
Define the type of change that is
incoming from an operational or
business point of view
Competence to describe, communicate
and model the incoming change
STEP 2
Model of EMC risk due to
imminent change
Modelling the risks which are
triggered directly by the incoming
change: Expected Model of Change EMC Risks
Competence to conduct focus groups with
different organisational functions.
STEP 3
Review of performance
management
Monitoring all relevant Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs) and
prepare to monitor their variance
associated with change
Operational and statistical skills on
relevant system Indicators
STEP 4
EMC risk estimation and
impacts
Assessing the EMC risks as defined in
Step 2
Competence to conduct workshops and
operational skills in Risk Matrix
classifications, estimation and analysis
STEP 5
Exit
With no EMC risk impacts, NO
ACTION IS REQUIRED
n/a
STEP 6
Simulation of a “controlled”
change (system “to be”) to
reduce EMC risks
Exercise of simulation of relevant
solutions to reduce hazards of the
most relevant EMC risks identified in
STEP 4
Simulation and estimation skills to reduce
hazard frequency and/or severity of the
selected EMC risks
STEP 7
Redo STEP 6
If there is no EMC risk reduction,
then repeat STEP 6
n/a
STEP 8
Strategic/Process/Capability
model to be
If EMC risk reduction is confirmed in
Step 6, a model of the “system to be”
shall be defined according to MASCA
requisites of strategy, process and
capability
Modeling skills, Problem solving skills,
Communication skills, Estimation skills,
Group decision making skills
STEP 9
Strategic/Process/Capability
requirements
Provision of Strategic, Process and
Capability requirements to increase
readiness to respond to the
upcoming change
Competence in designing of strategic,
process and capability requirements to
implement Step 8 in the organisation
STEP 10 implementation and
monitoring
Provision of means and plans
(resources) to implementation and
monitoring of strategic requirements
Project management skills
Project Auditing skills
Notably, the first column of Table 1 defines the LIFE steps, the second column the key actions per each step
and the third column defines the requisite of competence to conduct the various steps.
Step 1 would describe the organizational change in a clear and concise written form and leads to the
agreement that the change could have a relevant potential effect upon the organization. A capacity to
summarise the change in a written and visual description together with group communication and conflict
resolution skills should be in place. The model of the chance is called the Expected Model of Change or
EMC. This would bring forward Step 2 where a model about the areas of impact of those risks accounted for
by the potential chance should be in place. Such types of risks are called the EMC risks. Competence to
conduct focus groups to shortlist the all relevant EMCs and their areas of impact should be available.
Estimation and group decision making skills are favorable at this stage. Although not directly associated to
the previous operations, the Step 3 is dedicated to setting up a strategy about the use of the key performance
indicators that will be critical to future monitoring of systems indicators sensitive to any organizational
response to the change and the actual impact of change within the organization. Operational and statistical
skills on relevant system Indicators are relevant of such a type of activity.
Ranking and shortlisting the EMC risks which demands immediate actions is the key action in Step 4 where
any selected EMC risk will be studied in a more classical approach in terms of hazard frequency and severity
estimation. Competence to conduct workshops and operational skills about risk matrix classifications,
estimation and qualitative or semi-quantitative risk assessments should be available at this level. If EMC
risks have relevant impact according to the LIFE analysts, then Step 6 is applied. In particular a solution to
reducing the hazard frequency and/or the severity of relevant EMC risks is “simulated”. The term simulation
is here applied to define a group activity (a dedicated workshop) with all LIFE analysts in order to model a
sustainable system change which can be put in place to increase the likelihood of reducing hazard
frequencies or severities of any EMC risks. This is a purely prospective change assessment strategy where
the company should imagine how to change its form, structure or functions in order to accommodate more
proficiently the EMC and EMC risks which are estimated to occur in the future. In such view the
organization thinks about an internal change to react to an external change that will occur in the future.
Clearly, modeling and problem solving skills are paramount for this Step 6. Clearly if there is no EMC risk
reduction, repetition of Step 6 is necessary as suggested by Step 7.
Furthermore, Step 8 and 9 specify an effort to modeling strategy, processes and capabilities required to
support the solution given, that is, the “new system configuration” and requirements as simulated in Step 6.
Still modeling and problem solving skills are paramount for this phase.
Finally Step 10 should be dedicated to implementation and monitoring of all key performance indicators
according to the previous Step 3. Project management skills as well as project auditing skills are critical to
keep under control the systems of change of the LIFE solutions.
3. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW COMPANY PROCEDURES AND FLIGHT
MANAGEMENT TOOLS: THE EFB SYSTEM
The application of the LIFE methodology is now presented in the context of an operational case study for
some of the LIFE steps defined accordingly. In particular, the model of change, or Expected Model of
Change, in Step 1 (see figure 1 above) is given as “use of the Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) technology”. This
is an operational change for an airline company approaching the introduction of such technology. Focusing
on the flight operations area, the case study put in place a risk analysis technique to investigate potential
future risk events that may be occurring if the EFB would be introduced in the airline company. In particular,
Steps 1-4 of the LIFE methodology are here applied and presented in the case study below. In addition, with
reference to Step 4 only the initial phase of the process of identification of hazards and risk evaluation is
carried out, as the complete process has been described in a different paper presented in this Conference (De
Grandis et al., 2012). Steps 5-10 are rapidly reviewed with respect to the LIFE approach as the EFB case
study is at present only in its initial phase as it will be detailed in the following sections.
3.1 EFB implementation in AirDol
The purpose of this section is to describe the evaluation of risks identified and connected to flight operations
and the use of the EFB system.
3.2 Problem Statement
The implementation of the EFB is being gradually introduced in the company, starting with a family of
modern aircrafts in operation. The implementation and use of the EFB is a obviously an important change in
the organization, as it is expected that there will be an overall return of effectiveness in the management of
the operations by reducing the time spent in preparation of the different routes and loads as well as in
optimizing flight times etc. This would also impact on the overall efficiency of the operations, reducing the
amount of time loss in correlating the work of ground and flying staff.
At the same time it is expected that there will be a reduction of “human errors” of different nature, in relation
to the evaluation of routes and in preparing landing and take-off procedures, as well as in setting a variety of
data and setting crucial quantities, such as the key decision speeds of go-non-go or rotate (take-off speed).
However, it is important to consider that the introduction of the EFBs may generate other types or modes of
human error which must be defined and studied in order to perform a complete assessment of the new risk
scenarios to be assessed.
The problem to be studied in this phase of implementation of the LIFE approach is only associated to the
potential hazards and indicators of safety that result from the change. The full process of risk evaluation will
be implemented in the future, when the EFB will be active and in operation within the organization and data
collection will take place. In this initial stage, only the expert judgment of analysts and the familiarity with
company rules and accepted behaviours (culture) is being utilized, in combination with the available data and
past experience of certain associated organizations willing to share their historic data and past experience.
Moreover, the process of implementation of the EFB within that company follows a precise process of
progressive inclusion of electronic support. The initial phase of implementation implies the usage of
electronic maps inserted in special hardware systems (i-pod, tablets, portable PC, etc.) to be carried on board
by the pilots and connected externally to the cockpit controls and interfaces. The usage of hardware systems
(PCs or tablets), external to the cockpit control systems and flight directors, implies that the EFB system
cannot be utilized during flight critical phases of take-off and landing and can be extensively utilized and
connected to the control system of the aircraft while on the ground and during the pre-flight phase.
In a second phase of implementation, the EFB will be fully integrated within the control system of the
aircraft so as to enable usage during the whole operational period. In this case therefore, in addition to the
usage of the EFB for the maps and airport plans and procedures, it will be possible to extensively use the
electronic support for calculating critical dynamic quantities, such as “weight and balance” and “speeds”.
These two phases of implementation of the EFB require the use of specific methods and approaches in
support of the hazard identification and risk evaluation. In this paper, the initial steps of phase one are
described, highlighting the possible techniques and ways of implementation for the assessment of the KPIs
of the second phase.
3.3 Qualitative Event Assessment
In order to carry out the preliminary analysis of the usage of the EFB in the configuration of the hardware
systems carried on board and their usage for the pre-flight phase a set of workshops and brain storming
meetings have been carried out in order to define the set of hazards or undesirable operational states that may
derive from the usage of the EFB systems.
This process leads to a simple table of generic hazard identification in association to the usual activities and
processes implemented in the company as Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). In the case of the EFB, this
table is developed considering the pre-flight steps and activities carried out by the pilots (Table 2). These can
be further subdivided in two periods: cockpit preparation and final cockpit crew. They can be further
subdivided in:
Cockpit Preparation comprising:
• Cockpit Power up
• Walk Around (external inspection)
• Cockpit Preparation by pilot in command (CM 1 - captain)
• Cockpit Preparation by pilot (CM 2 - first officer)
Cockpit Crew comprising:
• Final Cockpit Preparation
The most relevant contribution of this step of activity is represented by the identification of the conditions
generating hazards and the initial assessment of the potential consequences or outcome of the evolution of
the hazard, independently of containment measures or consequences.
Table 2. Generic hazard identification
Activity or Issue
Hazard
Phase Cockpit Preparation
• Cockpit Power up
• Walk Around (external inspection)
• Cockpit Preparation CM 1 (Pilot in Command)
• Cockpit Preparation CM 2 (First Officer)
Excessive workload of CM2 due to
- Software initialisation not
number of task to carry out during
completed
cockpit preparation
- Maps not available
Improper/inadequate loading of
- Improper selection of portrait
software
- Maps not available
Lack of adjournment of software
- Improper selection of portrait
- Maps not available
Lack of familiarity with PC handling,
time pressure on CM2
- Improper storage of PC
- Maps not available
Phase Cockpit Crew
• Final Cockpit Preparation
Pilot workload
Out of charge batteries
No updated paper maps or
missing paper maps
No Airfield Sketch. Lack of
familiarity with airfield, worsen by
visibility problems
 No Ground facilities (radar, light
guidance system, etc.)
No SID (Standard Instrumental
Departure)
 No/Wrong SID, bad weather
No approach chart in the case of
emergency (bad weather,
environment difficult, for example
mountains)
- Pilots unable to locate maps
- Loss of SA
- No charts on show
- Loss of SA
- Flying with wrong maps or without
maps
- Loss of SA
- No coordinates for Xcheck with
FMS (impossible to see taxiway)
- Getting lost on airfield
- No info/news on obstacles
- Loss of SA
- Missing performance
- Flying wrong departure
- Missing information in the case of
emergency (increase of WL of crew)
- Loss of SA
Potential outcome
- Flight cancellation or delay
- Flight cancellation or delay
- Loss of separation
- CFIT
- Flight cancellation or delay
- Loss of separation
- CFIT
- Damage to cables or PC
- Fire/smoke in the cabin
- Flight cancellation or delay
- Loss of separation
- CFIT
- Diversion – Delay
- Loss of separation
- CFIT
- Diversion – Delay
- Loss of separation
- CFIT
- Runway incursion
- Flight cancellation
- Ground collision (aircraft,
infrastructures and vehicles)
- Mid-air collision
- Loss of separation (ground and
flight)
- CFIT
- Wrong runway take-off
- Loss of control in flight
- CFIT
3.4 Quantitative Assessment
Methods for quantification of risks
The quantification phase of the approach begins by combining the different hazards identified in the
qualitative assessment process and associating these to the potential outcome resulting from the brain
storming process. This leads to the definition of the hazards that need to be studied in order to “position”
each of them on the risk matrix. This is a typical quantification process that enables to associate to each
hazard a probability of occurrence and a severity of the resulting consequences (ARMS, 2011).
Both these quantification approaches require the usage of a variety of methods. Usually, “Expert Judgment”
(EJ) is applied as it seems fast and simple to implement. In reality, a formal implementation of the EJ
approach requires a rather lengthy and demanding process of definition of the quantities to be evaluated. EJ
can be utilized for probabilities and occurrences as well as severity of consequences.
Other methods may be considered when EJ may be too expensive to apply in a formal way or is considered
too simple and shallow if simple judgment is utilized. Generally speaking the assessment of the severity of
consequences is performed by simulation or by coupling simple simulation and some experimental analysis.
In order to assess the probabilities of each occurrence a variety of methods exists than can be applied
depending on the type of hazard being studied, e.g., system failures, human inadequate performances etc.
Preliminary quantification of hazards and consequences
In the case of the EFB case study, the initial assessment of the hazards and consequences started by
combining the various hazards and building the actual undesirable operational states to be assessed. In the
case of the EFB, the initial study identified 14 hazardous conditions (Table 3), out of the list of hazards
resulting from the preliminary analysis. For each hazard the set of possible outcomes are also selected from
the qualitative analysis.
In order to assess the severity of the consequences some initial work of definition of the “Control Measures”
is carried out and the measures are identified. The evaluation of the severity of the consequences is defined
in relation to a reference set of severity values that are defined and fixed for all the safety studies performed
for the organizations. In this case, a set of six severity levels has been utilized (“None, Minor, Low, Medium
High and Extreme”) in association to the level of damage resulting from the consequences of the hazard
evolution. In this phase of study, full usage of EJ has been utilized, also in consideration of the preliminary
nature of the study.
In order to evaluate the probability of occurrence of each consequence, the process of evolution from the
initial hazard (undesirable operational state) to the final event must be considered. For this first phase of
implementation of the EFB, amongst the variety of tools and techniques available for assessing the
probability of occurrence, the most appropriate methods that have been applied are the use of EJ and the
approach approach known as TESEO (Colombari and Bello, 1980).
While EJ is the most common approach utilized for assessing probabilities, as discussed above, TESEO
needs the availability of an actual procedure or the implementation of a specific activity to be carried out by
operators in order to associate a specific probability of unsuccessful performance. In some cases, however, it
has been considered more appropriate the usage of EJ or possibly also the process of elicitation of knowledge
and experience existing within the organization as well as in the database of reporting incidents and
occurrences of various nature. As in the case of the evaluation of the severity, also for the assessment of the
probabilities a standard set of values applied thorough the safety studies of the organization has been defined,
with 7 discrete levels of probabilities, i.e., Extremely remote, Remote, Unlikely, Low, Possible, Likely,
Frequent.
The combination of the 7 discrete levels of probabilities with the 6 levels of severity defined for the
quantification of the consequences enables the definition of the Risk Matrix that is utilized as reference for
the assessment of all hazards selected for assessment for the organization. The use of the same Risk Matrix
(RM) for all hazards selected for safety assessment ensures consistency of the analysis. The RM in use at
AirDol has already been presented elsewhere (De Grandis et al., 2012) and will not here shown again.
However, it is important to recall that the combination of severity and probability results in sets of “cells” of
the RM with a precise indication of activity to consider for ensuring the respect of safety margins. These are
indicated by letters and have the following meaning: A – Extreme risk requiring immediate mitigation; B –
High risk requiring short term mitigation; C – Acceptable risk with mitigation potentialities, requiring long
term improvement; D – Low risk requiring simple monitoring; and E – Negligible risk, data collection
required. In the present study, initial quantification has been performed and results are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Quantification of hazards and consequences.
9
10
ATC comm.
EOP
Training
-
Loss of ground sep.
CFIT
-
Mid-air collision
Loss of ground/air
separation
Wrong runway t-off
11
Missing
performance
12
Missing infor. in
the case of
emergency (WP
of crew)
No info/news on
obstacles
13
14
Flying wrong
departure
-
-
EOP
Training
EGPWS
ATC comm.
EOP
Training
EGPWS
ATC comm.
EOP
Training
ATC comm.
SOP - EOP
TCAS, EGPWS
EJ
-5
2,4 10
TESEO
-7
1,8 10
EJ
-10
3,0 10
EJ
-7
1,2 10
EJ
-12 C
3,0 10
6,0 10
C
EJ
-8
3,6 10
C
EJ
-8
3,9 10
C
-7
C
C
C
C
B
C
C
D
Action
s and
owners
Monitor.
&
Review
requir.
Risk
EJ
-7
6,0 10
C
Likelihood
TESEO
-7
1,8 10
C
Outcome
(PostMitigation)
Severity
Likelihood
8
Severity
ATC comm.
SOP
Training
-
Runway incursion
Ground collision
with infras./ac/veh.
Wrong runway t-off
Runway incursion
Ground collision with
infras./ac/veh.
Wrong runway t-off
Mid-air collision
Loss of ground sep.
CFIT
Loss of control in
flight
CFIT
No charts on
show
Low
-
7
Low
No coordinates
for Xcheck with
FMS (impossible
to see taxiway)
Getting lost on
airfield
Loss of SA
Low
Training
SOP/EOP
TCAS, EGPWS
6
High
Diver./Alter./Delay
Loss of separation
CFIT
Pilots unable to
locate maps
TESEO
-7
2,7 10
High
-
5
TESEO
-4
1,5 10
High
Flying with
wrong maps or
without maps
Improper storage
of PC
EJ
-4
2,4 10
High
Diver./Alter./Delay
Loss of separation
CFIT
Diver./Alter./Delay
Loss of separation
CFIT
4
TESEO
-4
3,6 10
High
-
Maintenance
Quality
SOP
Training
SOP/EOP
TCAS, EGPWS
Training
SOP/EOP
TCAS, EGPWS
Maintenance
TCAS
EGPWS
Improper
selection of
portrait
Maintenance
Quality
TCAS, EGPWS
Maintenance
Quality
TCAS, EGPWS
Training
SOP/EOP
TCAS, EGPWS
Extreme
Flight delay or canc.
Loss of separation
CFIT
Flight delay or canc.
Loss of separation
CFIT
Flight delay or canc.
Loss of separation
CFIT
Damage to cables/PC
Fire/smoke in cabin
Flight delay or canc.
Loss of separation
CFIT
Medium
-
Software
initialisation not
completed
Maps not
available
Extre
3
Description
Additional
mitigation
required
High
2
Outcome
(PreMitigation)
High
1
.
Existing
Control
High
No
Incident sequence
description
Risk
Hazard
The implementation of the remaining steps of development of the LIFE approach would lead to the
completion of the Hazard-Consequences table. This process is presently under development.
Considering the overall risk assessment, it is noticeable that each hazard generates more than one
sequence/occurrence of different severity and probability. However, in Table 3, which represents the final
table for risk assessment, only one of these sequences is considered. This is the occurrence that is associated
with the highest risk, i.e., the highest value of combined severity and probability. This is considered
acceptable as the “additional mitigations required” to reduce risk are combined with the initial hazard and
their mitigation effects can be expanded to all possible consequences derived from such hazard. Therefore, it
can be assumed that reducing to an acceptable level the risk of the occurrence with highest risk forces all the
other occurrences to an acceptable level.
As a consequence of these considerations, the hazard that presents the highest risk (Table 3) is the “Absence
of charts” (“Hazard 7”) and the associated sequence “loss of separation” between aircrafts, which leads to
“high risk requiring short term mitigation” (level of risk “B”), even if the severity is “high” and not
“extreme”, as it would be if the sequence CFIT (Controlled Flight Into Terrain) was to be analyzed.
4. CONCLUSION
The application of some of the steps in the LIFE methodology in the context of a real operational case study
is necessary for the validation of the methodology. This paper has provided an overview of the process of
implementation of the methodology and its application to the case of an actual implementation of
management of change. The results obtained so far are promising and enable an organization, through a
systematic and prospective risk and hazard assessment, to reduce the risk that the organization faces in
meeting its strategic challenges, comparing current performances to projected demands.
The use of methods such as Expert Judgment and TESEO are supported by extensive applications in other
real safety assessment. It is however the responsibility of the safety manager of the organization to select the
most appropriate techniques and methods to perform the evaluation of risk and depends on the level of
expertise of the whole safety team involved in the analysis.
The methodology remains the most innovative aspect of the proposed approach and the needs to account for
changes in the organisation are the current most relevant issues to be dealt with by means of risk based
approaches.
Acknowledgements
The MASCA project has received funding from the European Commission Seventh Framework Programme
(FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n° 266423.
References
ARMS, (2011) The ARMS Methodology for Operational Risk Assessment in Aviation Organisations.
http://www.easa.eu.int/essi/documents/Methodology.pdf visited 2011.12.28.
Bello, G.C. and Colombari, C. (1980) The human factors in risk analyses of process plants: the control room
operator model, TESEO. Reliability Engineering. 1 3-14.
De Grandis E., Oddone, I., Ottomaniello, A., Cacciabue, P.C. (2012) Managing risk in real contexts with
scarcity of data and high potential hazards: the case of flights in airspace contaminated by volcanic ash.
These Proceedings of PSAM-11 - ESREL 2012, Helsinki, Finland, June 25-29.
ICAO - International Civil Aviation Organisation (2009) Safety Management Manual Doc 9859, AN/474.
Second Edition, Montreal, Canada.
McDonald, N., Ulfvengren, P., Ydalus, M., and Oder, E. (2012) A methodology for managing system
change. This Proceedings of PSAM-11 - ESREL 2012, Helsinki, Finland, June 25-29.