A Review of the Event Analysis of Systemic Teamwork Methodology

More documents

Recommendations

Info

HFIDTC/WP1.1.3/10 Version 2/ 31 October 2005 Example The following example is taken from an analysis of a switching scenario drawn from the civil energy distribution domain (Salmon et al 2004b). The propositional networks presented in Figure 3-18 to Figure 3-22 present the knowledge objects (shaded in red) identified from the corresponding CDM output for that phase. The CDM outputs are presented in Table 29 to Table 32. The propositional network consists of a set of nodes that represent sources of information, agents, and objects etc. that are linked through specific causal paths. From this network, it is possible to identify required information and possible options relevant to this incident. The concept behind using a propositional network in this manner is that it represents the ‘ideal’ collection of knowledge for the scenario. As the incident unfolds, so participants will have access to more of this knowledge (either through communication with other agents or through recognising changes in the incident status). Consequently, within this propositional network, Situation Awareness can be represented as the change in weighting of links. Propositional networks were developed for the overall scenario and also the incident phases identified during the CDM analysis. The propositional networks indicate which of the knowledge objects are active (i.e. agents are using them) during each incident phase. The light blue nodes in the propositional networks represent unactivated knowledge objects (i.e. knowledge is available but is not required nor is it being used). The red nodes represent active (or currently being used) knowledge objects. Table 29 - CDM Phase 1: First issue of instructions Goal Specification Cue identification Establish what isolation the SAP at Barking is looking for. Depends on gear Don’t Believe It (DBI) alarm is unusual – faulty contact (not open or closed) questionable data from site checking rating of earth switches (may be not fully rated for circuit current – so additional earths may be required. Check that SAP is happy with instructions as not normal. Expectancy Conceptual Model Uncertainty Information Situation Awareness Decision expected by DBI is not common. Recognised instruction but not stated in WE1000 – as there are not too many front and rear shutters metal clad switch gear. Confirm from field about planned instruction – make sure that SAP is happy with the instruction. Reference to front and rear busbars. WE1000 procedure Metal clad switchgear Barking SGT1A/1B substation screen SAP at Barking Situation Assessment Ask colleagues if needed to 79
HFIDTC/WP1.1.3/10 Version 2/ 31 October 2005 Options Stress Choice No alternatives N/A WE1000 – need to remove what does not apply Could add front and rear busbar procedures Analogy Best practice guide for metal clad EMS switching Table 30 - CDM Phase 2: Deal with switching requests Goal Specification Cue identification Expectancy Conceptual Model Uncertainty Information Situation Awareness Situation Assessment Options Stress Choice Analogy Obtain confirmation from NOC that planned isolation is still required. Approaching time for planned isolation. Switching phone rings throughout building. Airblast circuit breakers (accompanied by sirens) can be heard to operate remotely (more so in Barking 275 than Barking C 132). Yes – routine planned work according to fixed procedures. Wokingham have performed remote isolations already. Circuit configured ready for local isolation. Physical verification of apparatus always required (DBI – don’t believe it). Proceduralised information from NOC – circuit, location, time, actions required etc. Switching log. Switching log. Physical status of apparatus. Planning documentation. Visual or verbal information from substation personnel. Planning documentation used only occasionally Refusal of switching request. Additional conditions to switching request. Some time pressure. Yes – highly proceduralised anyway Yes – routine activity Table 31 – CDM Phase 3: Perform isolation 80
Page 1 and 2:
Analysing C4i Activity: A Review of
Page 3 and 4:
HFIDTC/WP1.1.3/10 Version 2/ 31 Oct
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32: HFIDTC/WP1.1.3/10 Version 2/ 31 Oct
Page 81: HFIDTC/WP1.1.3/10 Version 2/ 31 Oct
Page 113: HFIDTC/WP1.1.3/10 Version 2/ 31 Oct
show all

A Review of the Event Analysis of Systemic Teamwork Methodology

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?