Post on 30-Dec-2015
transcript
2
Lack of access
to crew
diagrams
Is waiting train crew report a
valid reason to dispute?
Fatality due to trespass at a station. – How can attribution determine whether it is a V or X code if there is no CCTV or other investigation?
I or X codes when animals
access the track by
jumping the fence
What is the definition of Day 1?
VSTP delays attribution to
TOC – Plan should have been verified
Attribution Queries
3
Challenges to Day to Day Attribution
Disputes are not responded to on day 1
Delay attribution process is too costly
Incidents are not always recorded in real timeAn overly
involved
Network Rail
Level 3
Delays in resolving ‘generic disputes’
Quick/accurate re-
attribution by
Network Rail after
disputes are
investigated or
resolvedIncidents are agreed
at level 2 with the lead zone without agreement from the involved zone
Attribution process is too slow to
follow
4
Challenges to Day to Day Attribution
Limits of TRUST reporting 4
reporting points in 2 miles then 6 miles
with no intermediate points
at all.
Resolving sub-threshold delay
causing threshold delay can be very time
consuming. Taking longer than larger
incidents
Inconsistent approach from
one area to another
Cross Route Delays
5
Challenges to Day to Day Attribution
Influence on attribution process
of financial considerations
(Commercial take back)
Delay Attribution as a performance tool (per original intention) Vice as
a financial instrument
Same issues with attribution since 2007
6
Challenges to Day to Day Attribution
Follow up response by Network Rail is often post
day 7
Dispute Resolution at level 1. Who are we supposed to speak to at
Network Rail to get dispute resolved on Day 1? We dispute the
incidents in TRUST but often no more is heard until Level 2 sort out
the problem.
Dispute resolution too slow at level 2 &3
7
Challenges to Day to Day Attribution
Better communications required to gain accurate
information to define prime root cause
Deficiencies within the DAG. i.e. timetable clashes – all NR
responsibility, Doesn’t really fulfil learning objectives
Although much improved, the DAG still has gaps in event
processing chartsEG. Third Rail
Network Knowledge required to cover remotely
8
Challenges to Day to Day Attribution
Over reliant on ‘principles’
rather than DAG
references
Prime cause Vs
Root Cause
DAG is becoming too prescriptive which avoids disputing/ambiguity
but can destroy the performance/learning objectives
& purpose of DA
Rulings/Guide not issued in
‘DAG’ format
9
Challenges to Day to Day Attribution
Lack of ownership
and pride in ensuring that
the data is correct
Level 1 ‘template’
is over-used
Access to incident headers for TOC staff
would reduce the number of phone calls or incidents disputed – just to get the title
changed.
Level 2 attribution
during times of major
disruption is a struggle
Network Rail
attribution cover on
event days
10
Challenges to Day to Day Attribution
A driver’s report no longer appears
to be sufficient
A lack of responsibility to
investigate or follow up Off network delays
– ECS class 5s in particular
Interpretation of passenger
connections and or diversions are in the
TOCs favour.
11
TOP 5 DELAY ATTRIBUTION BARRIERS
•GETTING IT RIGHT FIRST TIME
•INDUSTRY CULTURE
•LACK OF CONSISTENCY IN APPLYING THE DAG
•TRAINING AND INDUSTRY KNOWLEDGE
•TIME TAKEN TO RESOLVE DISPUTES
12
RESOLVING DA ISSUESGETTING IT RIGHT FIRST TIME
•Provide the correct process at level1
• Improve level 2 & 3 efficiency
•Provide expert training
• Impart knowledge
•Share resources
•Remove or mitigate against the effect of target setting and
money on the attribution process
13
RESOLVING DA ISSUESINDUSTRY CULTURE•What: Understanding why we have the performance regime and how this is used
Advise on root causes when appropriate
Feel that you are able to challenge appropriately and can execute a difficult discussion
Uncouple objectives from performance targets
•How: Open and honest joined up briefings
Joint up training involving both Network Rail and Operators to be given – Training on Performance should be incorporated into the Induction training
Bi lateral sessions between operational grades
14
RESOLVING DA ISSUESINDUSTRY CULTURE
•Who: Assign a champion – project leader
•Put together joint performance teams
•Share the knowledge with:
•Drivers
•Signallers
•Stations/customer services
• IMM staff
•Train planners
•Fleet technicians
•TDA level 1 staff
How: Workshops on conflict resolution – professional body.
When: As soon as there is a plan in place, champion targets are set and agreed
15
RESOLVING DA ISSUESINDUSTRY CULTURE
•What: Financial targets – delegated authorities
•What: Perverse incentivisation
‐KPI ‘pots’
‐Responsible Managers
‐Budgets
•How: Promote a culture where the Responsible Managers form part of the target setting process
•Who should get involved: Responsible Managers
16
RESOLVING DA ISSUESINDUSTRY CULTURE
•What: Approach to budget management –
– Used as a performance management tool
– Personalities – intimidation
– Lack of understanding of the DAG
– Protecting the company interest – not impartial
– Perceptions may not be aligned – was the correct process followed?
•How: Education – Reasons for DA
•Re-instate previous DA staffing levels
• Joint up training
•DA boundaries – input from managers who are not directly involved in the process
• Improvement of the internal attribution process
•Group meetings/sessions – DAB, TOCs, FOCs, Network Rail, Operational staff
17
RESOLVING DA ISSUESINDUSTRY CULTURE
• Who:
•Network Rail Route Performance Measurement Managers
•Route Performance Managers
•Local Operations Managers
•Directors
•Network Rail Development Specialist
•Delay Attribution Managers Group
•Operator’s Strategy Managers
•Operator’s Performance Managers
•Delay Attribution Board
18
RESOLVING DA ISSUESINDUSTRY CULTURE
•What: Culture bred by targets
•Knowledge of the purpose of attribution
•How: Through education, training, cross Industry collaboration
•Who: Everyone
‐DAB
‐DMAG
‐RPMMG
‐Local line managers
‐Senior managers
•When: Start now – DAB to coordinate
19
RESOLVING DA ISSUES
LACK OF CONSISTENCY IN APPLYING THE
DAG
DAG is more passenger
focused than freight focused!
Commercial deals defeat the
purpose of identifying root
cause don’t they?
Attribution process is
abandoned during periods of
extreme perturbation
DAB perceived to be too formal
20
RESOLVING DA ISSUES
LACK OF CONSISTENCY IN APPLYING THE
DAG•What: Interpretation of the DAG – Requests for guidance
• Lack of process knowledge
»Forms
» Jargon
• Requesting for guidance is seen as last resort – ‘washing dirty linen
•How: Regional sessions, informal road shows•Better sharing of best practice•More accountability•New delay code for pending report
21
RESOLVING DA ISSUES
LACK OF CONSISTENCY IN APPLYING THE
DAG•What: Standard of incident creation
•Same quality and depth of incident creation across Routes.
•How: Use EESIC [Essential Elements of Standard Incident Creation] to create incidents
– EESIC to be updated and re-issued in June. RPMM’s to make sure that the EESIC is followed.
– Compliance with the EESIC to be assured through an Audit process
– Support to be given to the DA process by both Network Rail and the Operators. Transparency of the process and why TDA is important drives performance improvement.
22
RESOLVING DA ISSUES
TRAINING AND INDUSTRY KNOWLEDGE
Multiple Choice
Questions
Case Studies
FAQ question bank
Best Practice
23
RESOLVING DA ISSUESTRAINING AND INDUSTRY KNOWLEDGE
• What: Practical hands on interactive training
• Who: New starters
• Why: Create a centralised base for all industry partners involved in the DA process
• How: On-line course on the DAB website using real-time DA attribution examples/scenarios that require the person participating to use the DAG.
• When: Pass out competent before becoming an attributor and also undertake an annual review
24
RESOLVING DA ISSUESTRAINING AND INDUSTRY KNOWLEDGE
•What: Job specific training before starting the job
•Why: Need a clear and practical understanding
•Who: Who is responsible for taking ownership of training on this topic in the industry. – TOCs, FOCs, NR, DAB – We need ownership
•When: Before initiating the role
25
RESOLVING DA ISSUESTRAINING AND INDUSTRY KNOWLEDGE
•What: Accredited Training Courses
•Why: This would raise the profile of the role and function of
Delay Attribution and DAB
•How: Roster training and or briefing days for Delay
Attribution and Control staff
•Who: All relevant staff
• Efficient and effective use of the Workforce
Development Specialist (Ian Heath)
26
RESOLVING DA ISSUESTRAINING AND INDUSTRY KNOWLEDGE
•What: General Industry Training to Understand the Railway Better
•Why: There is a need for more accurate real-time information
•How: More DAB events
• Database of industry contacts
• Lead TDA to prepare brief for others to hear
• Undertake cab rides, digital route learning information
• Maps, box diagrams & photographs
• Area visits and maintenance depot visits
•When: On going
27
RESOLVING DA ISSUESTRAINING AND INDUSTRY KNOWLEDGE
•What: Systems – Where to find information
•Why: There is a need for more accurate real-time information
•How: Learning from colleagues
• User guides
• Systems champions on an on-going basis
•When: On going
•Note: Issues preventing this- Scarce resources – availability of attributors to be released – budget limitations on RDW identification of who needs additional training and who can help
28
RESOLVING DA ISSUESTRAINING AND INDUSTRY KNOWLEDGE
•What: Generic briefings
•Why: There is a need for more joint up working
•How: Joint briefings between Network Rail and Operators
•When: During the DAG change briefing period
29
RESOLVING DA ISSUESTRAINING AND INDUSTRY KNOWLEDGE
•What: Technical Understanding and Terminology
•Why: Fundamental to right first time attribution
•How: Mutual improvement led by an expert
• Visits to maintenance training facilities
• Depot visit to understand fleet references
• Refresher training at specific times e.g. leaf-fall season to renew knowledge of TGAs, one shot sanders etc
30
RESOLVING DA ISSUESTRAINING AND INDUSTRY KNOWLEDGE
•What: Standardisation of the text/freeform box use to be implemented
•Why: Currently the information can be confusing and inconsistent to people that may not have the same level of knowledge and experience as the person who create the incident
•How: DAG to have suggestions, definitions a guide for freeform terms to use
• Provide a link to a jargon buster on the DAB website or to other websites
31
RESOLVING DA ISSUESTIME TAKEN TO RESOLVE DISPUTES
•What: Cross route re-attribution
•How: Owning the route, lead zone to have other # sign
on and responsibility
•How: Network Rail Route to communicate and trust each
other
•What: Needless escalation to level 3
•How: Level 2 Network Rail to be given authority and
trust and responsibility to deal with the incidents
32
RESOLVING DA ISSUESTIME TAKEN TO RESOLVE DISPUTES
•What: It’s not mine, I don’t want it, it will bust my target
•How: Honest responsible managers wanting to understand issues
and engagement in budget setting
•What: The commercial deal
• Issues: Not visible, ‘Grandfather rights’, deals are rarely reviewed
•How: Fully visible commercial deals – with review and break
clauses
•What: Attribution at times of disruption at times of severe
perturbation – reduced staff resource
•How: Identify staff with relevant experience
– Consider training L2 staff to undertake the task
•When: During a major incident, Leaf Fall, Severe Weather