Questions and answers
A Questions and answers discussed at the SMIS+ supplier day 16 July 2015
Item
1
Section
1.11
Specification
The system shall have the
ability to pull in reference
data from the data
repository automatically, to
avoid users having to enter
these details manually.
Question from supplier
Can the RSSB provide specific
examples where reference data
will be used to populate details
automatically?
2
2.13
The system shall allow
functions.
Can the RSSB give a specific
examples of the kinds of
geographical areas that are
implied in this requirement?
3
4.7
The system shall allow users
to record 'other matters
concerning safety'. These
are not part of the event
chain.
Can the RSSB give a specific
example of 'other matters
concerning safety' that are not
part of the event chain?
Follow up:
a) Would this be free-flow text?
b) Will there be others that
Answer from RSSB
PS: This refers to fixed asset data that is
mastered by other rail organisations. An
example will be by the user selecting a signal
id, the system will automatically display on the
screen signal characteristics from the signal
register. Appendix J provides a list of
anticipated fixed asset types.
PS: This will be defined during the design
phase with the supplier, will be broken down,
some as rail-specific and others more general.
An example might be a train operator service
route, or a county.
PS: Other matters concerning safety –
these are human errors or safety
management failures which did not
contribute to the safety event but are
identified during the process of
investigation.
1
2
Item
Section
Specification
Question from supplier
aren't categorised at all?
c) If you find another safety
issue not related to the event
that you are investigating does
that become a new safety
event?
Answer from RSSB
Follow up:
a) Would probably still be categorised but
needs to be worked out with the successful
supplier.
b) The aim is to fit everything into one scheme
of categorisation.
c) We think so but need to work this during
the design phase.
4
7.12
Incidents in SMIS+ will create
safety events based on
specified criteria
automatically.
What is the difference between
an incident and a safety event?
Can RSSB provide an example
of an incident that is not a
safety event?
Follow up:
a) Specific to CCIL?
5
10.17
The system shall allow admin
users to maintain a list of
2nd and 3rd tier contractors.
What is the list of 2nd and 3rd
tier contractors needed for?
Can the RSSB give a specific
example of how this data will
be used?
Follow up:
PS: An incident is a pre-SMIS+ safety event,
and may form the basis of a safety event.
Incidents will include wholly operational
incidents that are not safety related, for
example a report of a staff member being
unavailable for work.
Follow up:
a) Yes, this is only related to CCIL, there
will need to be a capability to create a
safety events from an incident - this will be
based on business rules that are yet to be
defined.
JB: They are external to the system and
may need be referenced when close calls
being are logged into SMIS+. Lower-tier
contractors will work closely with principal
contractors who are actually using the
systems. We need to identify if an event
Item
Section
Specification
Question from supplier
a) do we want TOCs and FOCs'
principal contractors to use the
new SMIS+ system?
b) We don't have a vision for
contractors getting BI data out
of SMIS+ do we?
Answer from RSSB
came from a contractor in order to know
who actually needs to take responsibility
for resolving it.
JB: There is a wide range of contractors
currently reporting into the current close
call system (and some also reporting in
current SMIS).
Follow up:
a) we do intend for them to have the
choice to use SMIS+ but we expect this to
be phased. Key concern is getting all the
relevant close call data rather than
replacing contractors' own systems for
safety management - this will be via the
upload of close calls
b) There will be more opportunities for
contractors to use the SMIS+ system to get
BI data but they won't be required to use
this to replace their own systems. Some
principal contractors will be RSSB
members and will have access to the full
system. Network Rail will require their
contractors to report close calls using the
system, via bulk upload from their existing
systems.
3
Item
6
Section
10.23
Specification
The system shall have a
model of programme and
project hierarchies for each
organisation, where
applicable.
Question from supplier
Can RSSB provide an example
of how the programme and
project hierarchies will be used
within the system?
7
25.3
It shall be possible to
transform data in any of the
data sources (held within the
repository) into database
tables via the use of
transformation tools.
Can the RSSB provide a
specific example of when
data would need to be
transformed and inserted
into database tables?
The data management layer
shall need to have the
capability of an interface to
receive public feeds of TRUST
train movement data that is
distributed by Network Rail's
data feed service. The
interface will receive
messages throughout the
Can the RSSB provide a
specific example of when
TRUST data would be used
by the system?
Is the system only meant to
store the TRUST data from
the Network Rail data feed
service?
8
4
25.12
Follow up:
a) Are the new database tables
external to the system data
repository?
Answer from RSSB
PS: Please note the example provided in
Appendix A is based on the current CCS
organisation hierarchy. This will need to be
reviewed for the definitive future structure
that will be required in SMIS+
RK: An example would be incident data
from British Transport Police which will be
used for reporting purposes and may need
to be transformed into a common
language (e.g. changing of the Route
information to be rail specific). However,
this will be defined as part of the data
management specification work that will
be done with the successful supplier.
Follow up:
a) They will be within the data repository.
RK: TRUST data could be used in a number
of ways to provide supplementary
information for the other processes. For
example:
 To make a link between harm and train
performance
 to provide details of where a train was at a
particular moment
Item
9
Section
25.13
Specification
day and store them in the
data repository.
Question from supplier
The data management layer
shall need to have the
capability of an interface to
receive train consist data for
both passenger and freight
trains.
Can the RSSB provide a
specific example of when
train consist data would be
used by the system?
Follow up:
a) Are we expecting TOCs to
enter data in a central
system?
b) How fast are we expecting
this data to be pulled
through?
c) so we also need functions
to configure how that data
needs to consist.
Answer from RSSB
First step is to collect the data and later
in a future phase of implementation we
will look to make use of that data into
the processes.
RK: As with the answer to question 8, this
will be used to provide supplementary
information for the other processes.
JB: Specific example, train going past a red
signal, we need to record the train
locomotive number, the date, the service
details, all pulled automatically into the
system rather than being entered
manually.
Follow up:
a) RK: No - We will expect to build in SMIS+
interfaces from common data systems
which collect current Train Consist data for
all TOCs (Gemini) and FOCs (TOPS)
b) It doesn't need to be available
immediately, could be a day or so later
because there will still be time while the
incident is being investigated to bring this
data through.
PS: We will need to define a process of
adding that missing data if it is not
5
Item
Section
10
26.17
11
26.26
12
Reporting & BI
Specification
What are the Quality
Assurance, Production
Support environments
intended to be used for?
The system shall support
What does 'possible to map
calling external web services. the structure of incoming
It shall be possible to map
data to the destination
the structure of incoming
structure within the system'
data to the destination
mean. Can RSSB provide
structure within the system.
examples of when this would
need to occur?
One requirement of
Can you explain the different
developing the new system is groups of reporting and BI
that it is to be completely
users and how their skills
flexible and expandable (in
vary?
The following environments
shall be required:
terms of reporting etc.).
6
Question from supplier
Answer from RSSB
available.
c) RK: yes.
RK: QA equivalent of integration testing.
Production support is for testing changes
to the live system and supporting any
queries.
PS: Web services is just the method of
getting the data to the data repository.
See item 7 above for details of the
transformation.
PS:
 data consumer - this group will quickly digest
data from the system. They will be passive
users and will not expect to have any
reporting skills to access data. Users will
have no access to the system, but either
receive reports from it, or view dashboards
displaying their kpis.
 Data analyst - someone who will access the
system to carry out some analysis. These
users will have the skill to create and edit
reports within a predetermined framework.
Item
Section
Specification
Question from supplier
Answer from RSSB
 Data scientist - these users will have high
levels of reporting skills, building on the data
analyst. In addition to creating and editing
reports they will have the skills to build
statistical models, and identify trends. They
wouldn't be confined to data views and
would be comfortable mixing data sources,
and applying scripts and advanced analytical
techniques.
 Data reporter - these users will produce a
publication. A publication will be a series of
charts, tables, commentary. in addition to
the skills of a data analyst they will also have
the skills to organise the layout, add
commentary, manage version control,
collect reviews, manage feedback and
publish the publication.
Report developer - is an admin role,
where the user can create, edit, delete
reports, views, calculations and
models. They will have in-depth
knowledge of the reporting and BI
tools, and have the ability to write
reports efficiently.
7
8
Item
13
Section
Support
14
DQ process
15
Reporting & BI
16
Non functionals
Specification
Question from supplier
Will RSSB be the legal entity
who owns and is responsible
for the maintenance and
upkeep of the new SMIS+
system?
Could you elaborate in a
little more detail what the
Data Quality checking
process is?
In regards to your analytics
requirements and the need
for Predictive Models, is this
something you currently
have in place? Are there any
algorithms you currently
adhere to in regards to your
predictive model?
You have provided the
volumes of users expected
for SMIS+ in the document are these volumes expected
Answer from RSSB
TD: In terms of configuration but any advanced
configuration is consultancy service to be
provided by the supplier in the SLA.
PS: The data quality process is designed to
allow users (who are not the event owner) to
raise change requests when the see data
that is incorrect in SMIS. This process should
encourage the industry to treat events as
industry owned rather than just belonging to
a specific organisation. The process allows
for disputed events to be escalated to RSSB
for resolution.
PS: This is a capability we are looking to
develop and currently have no algorithms.
JB: Ramp up over a period of time
Item
Section
17
Tender
18
Tender
Specification
Question from supplier
Answer from RSSB
from day 1 or do you
envisage a gradual ramp-up
of users as the system is
adopted over a time period
as this may have an impact
on expected on-going annual
support and hosting costs.
TD: if this is the case, we would want a
In the pricing schedule
breakdown separately and then the average
provided there are entries
figure in the schedule.
for annual costs such as
support and hosting.
However annual costs may
change over the life of the
contract due to service
maturity / productivity and
user volumes. Would you
like a response as an average
over the life of the service,
the first year only or a
breakdown of individual
years as an addition?
TD: Yes - 1st September
section 7 of the main
document - Demonstration
and dialogue day for selected
tenderers (1 day per
9
Item
19
Section
Investigation
process
Specification
Question from supplier
tenderer during this period).
Is the date 01/08 a typo should it be 01/09?
On the RSSB1965 SMIS+
Invitation to Request to
Participate in Competitive
Dialogue v1.docx on page 56
the following users and
functions have been
provided. We have a
number of questions on
these roles:
 Are the 300 safety team and
300 DCP the same people or a
completely different set of
individuals?
Are the Lead
Investigator/Investigation
Team,
Actionee/Responsible
Manager, Action Resolver
the same people or are
they completely different
individuals?
10
Answer from RSSB
RK: The roles are different, and depending on
the organisation they could be the same
person (typically smaller organisations will
have the same individuals performing
multiple roles)
Item
20
Section
Non functionals
21
Tender
22
Tender
23
Tender
Specification
Question from supplier
Do you have a view /
assumption on likely end
user number concurrency
Answer from RSSB
JB: Current SMIS system is 50-80 concurrent
users which will increase for SMIS+. Based
on an initial estimate it is likely to be no
more than 200 concurrent users for SMIS but
could be many more for mobile users of the
new system.
TD: We are looking for commitment on the
number of days consultancy and support
that we can buy to assist RSSB with
implementing future phases of functionality.
In order to evaluate this fairly across all
suppliers, we will evaluate the same number
of days options for the different suppliers.
Please could you explain in
further detail about the post
phase 5 pricing table /
structure. What is the intent
and what are you looking to
achieve from this part of the
response.
TD: We expect to finalise T&Cs with the
What is the expectation for
successful tendered but do not envisage
10 August submission in
there to be major amendments
relation to the T&Cs
documentation, including
schedules and appendix D.
If there are points requiring
further discussion, how are
these to be managed at this /
future stages of the tender.
TD: This has already been amended
Section 7 of the main
document - Demonstration
and dialogue day for selected
11
Item
Section
24
Tender
25
Tender
26
Event recording
& management
process
12
Specification
Question from supplier
Record and Manage a Safety
Event
tenderers (1 day per
tenderer during this period).
Is the date 01/08 a typo should it be 01/09?
Is there a defined process
and timeline for following up
with references/referees or
as per the qualitative section
of the main document, do
you intend to rely on email
supporting evidence only?
Part A of the Draft Combined
T&Cs scheduled document
includes a number of
different pricing
mechanisms. In relation to
section 15 - pricing schedule
for TCO, do you have any
expectations / assumptions
in relation to which pricing
mechanism should apply to
which cost?
Would it be possible for you
to conduct a use case walk
Answer from RSSB
TD: Initially E-Mail supporting evidence,
though we may request reference site visits
for information during the dialogue process
TD: We plan to use firm pricing because of the
nature of SMIS+
PS: Data Overview presentation section
covered this.
Item
Section
Specification
27
1.3
The system shall allow the
user to create a safety event
from a sub-event template.
28
1.11
The system shall flag a record
if it satisfies European
Common Safety Indicator
reporting requirements
based on business rules.
Users shall be able to
overwrite this. The business
rules will be defined during
the design phase.
29
1.15
Question from supplier
through to address the
following questions?
Fields of a sub-event will
prepopulate corresponding
fields in the Safety Event.
What is the purpose for this?
Concerns over issues relating
to data value duplication.
Would a roll-up view be
suitable?
Answer from RSSB
PS: The intention of this is to give the user a
starting point that will be consistent every
time that sub event type is chosen. It
shouldn't result in any data duplication. For
example, if a user chooses the event type
'SPAD' a safety event will be created using
the 'SPAD' template, which will have one
sub-event, a number of related items, and a
number of the sub-event and item fields may
be pre-populated.
PS: It is envisaged that this flag will initially flag
potential European reportable events, which
will then require further investigation. This
investigation may then reveal the event to
not be reportable to the European agency.
Why would users be able to
override this flag if it is a
required reporting
requirement, especially as
this is not requested for 1.8,
1.9 and 1.10?
What type of rules are asked
of the reporting
requirements? Mandatory?
The system shall allow
In the example provided it is PS: Allowing different injuries to be split across
different injuries to be
sub-events allows the correct reporting
difficult to understand the
recorded for a person against reasons for this requirement,
under RIDDOR.
multiple sub-events. For
In general, it is expected that information on
can you explain further?
example, a driver might
each item will be recorded once and linked
13
Item
Section
30
1.22
31
1.24
14
Specification
suffer shock from a SPAD,
and then a broken arm from
a subsequent derailment.
Question from supplier
Answer from RSSB
to each relevant sub-event. So if the same
train driver was involved in three sub-events,
information about the driver would be
recorded once, but relationships would be
shown to all three sub-events. The train
driver would show whenever the relevant
sub-event was being viewed.
What is the importance of
having injuries recorded
against individual events?
In general, is it expected that
information related to Items
(People, Assets, Animals &
Other) are recorded in each
"sub-event" and rolled up for
view within the Safety
Event?
The system shall allow the
Is this just the ability to order PS: Yes.
addition, change of position
the timeline of events
and deletion of the event
correctly, either as reported
chain nodes via the visual
or as identified during
representation.
investigation?
The system shall allow
PS: Because some safety events come only
Can you further explain the
individual organisations to
through the interfaces via control logs. This
reason for this restriction?
define which sub-event types Had you considered that this
is to prevent duplication if it comes through
can be captured by mobile
the control log and the mobile.
approach is likely to
only, by web/integration only introduce a barrier to
or both.
reporting? If forms are
published to roles then users
will be able to use what is
immediately available to
them at the point of need,
Item
Section
32
2.2
33
2.6
Specification
The system shall have the
ability to send notifications
and tasks to other
organisations. For example,
some safety events involve
more than one organisation,
which means that in addition
to the owner of the event
other organisations need to
contribute to managing the
safety event/investigation. It
shall be possible to send
notifications and tasks to
these organisations.
The system shall allow users
from any organisation the
ability to raise a change
request against a safety
event flagging any
information (e.g. assets,
persons) that is incorrect or
missing from the event. The
change request shall include
Question from supplier
rather than having to find
the correct technical
reporting mechanism.
Does the RSSB anticipate
that these organisations will
have a login to the system,
or will they contribute
through some other means
out with the system?
Regarding the context of
'any'. Would this only be for
those individuals from the
organisations that are
involved with the safety
event in question, or is it
wider to any relevant or
authorised organisation?
As an alternative, would an
Answer from RSSB
PS: They would be users of the system.
PS: It is any organisation that has access to
the system. We only want the event owner
to have the permission to change the
safety event, but allow any other
organisation to raise a change request if
they think something is incorrect.
We do not want all organisations to be
able to change records that do not belong
to them.
15
Item
Section
Specification
the facility to add comments,
select the fields/values they
don’t agree with and record
the value(s) they believe is
correct. If the event owner
doesn't respond it shall
escalate.
34
2.16
The system shall have the
ability to send regular
feedback on the progress of
the safety event to the
recorder as a default.
35
3.5
The system shall help users
to create a remit or structure
to support the investigation.
This shall be defined by the
sub-event(s) of safety event,
level of investigation, LSR
breached, business area, and
causation factors.
16
Question from supplier
"open" system be acceptable
if a fully transparent audit
log facility were provided
highlighting who had
changed the record, what
had changed and when?
Follow up:
a) What about data security
to stop other organisations
viewing the data?
What sort of information and
at what frequency would be
required for such updates?
Is there anything they
shouldn't know, for example
sensitive information relating
to an investigation?
Please could you provide an
example of a remit or
structure if this is not a
workflow?
Answer from RSSB
Follow up:
a) Personal data will be restricted to the
event owner.
JB: RSSB will arbitrate over disputes on data
sharing or record changing.
JB: This will be defined during the detailed
design phase. It won't be constant, more
likely when event is closed etc.
PS: The remit is a template of what needs
to be addressed as part of the
investigation, please see appendix B.
Item
36
Section
4.3
37
38
9.7
Specification
The system shall allow users
to apply the IFC process to
events which are not
recorded in SMIS, such as
non-GB rail events and
events that have not
occurred in the GB rail
industry e.g. overseas rail
events, aviation events, etc.
Integration
The interface with Network
Rail’s CCIL system shall be
able to automatically pull
incident files from a location
on Network Rail’s IT
infrastructure into the SMIS+
environment. Need an area
of storage of these files.
Question from supplier
Answer from RSSB
If the events are not
recorded in SMIS+, then
where do they exist for
applying the IFC process?
Our assumption is that this is
a "placeholder" Safety Event
without any "sub-events"
and only Causation Factors?
PS: These events will be recorded in SMIS+
and we may define a small number of subevent types that are only applicable to
non-rail records so that they fit in the data
model.
Do any of the interface
scenarios to 3rd party
systems require users of
SMIS+ to be able to interact
with the 3rd party system
from within the SMIS+
interface?
Can you provide an
indication of storage
requirements based on data
volumes, typical data size
and how long these must be
retained for?
RK: No - all interfaces with 3rd party
systems will provide data to SMIS+ only
JB: CCIL data is only stored in SMIS for 3
months after which it is deleted as per the
process for updating incident records
which has a 90 day time limit. In SMIS+,
however, we may want to keep it for
longer therefore no decision has been
made at this stage.
17
Item
39
Section
Commercial
requirements
Specification
Intellectual Property
40
Event recording
& management
process
Appendix A - event recording
and investigation process –
PM1, PM1.4
18
Question from supplier
With regards to IP, how does
the RSSB envisage this
working, given the
foundation of SMIS+ is a
commercial product (COTS
solution)?
Answer from RSSB
TD: We are looking, as a minimum, to
retain event data model and investigation
management processes as IP and be able
to benefit from further sales of the
solution using this model and/or sales
leads we generate. Please explain your
suggestions for this as answers to these
questions.
Can you please clarify the
PS: An incident is a pre-SMIS+ safety event,
meaning of the term Incident and may form the basis of a safety event.
as used in this process flow? Incidents will include wholly operational
According to the glossary it is incidents that are not safety related, for
a “record that originates
example a report of a staff member being
from an incident file…” but
unavailable for work. See item 4
what is its equivalent entity
Follow up:
within the system? Suba) They can be zoomed in to read all of the
event or Occurrence?
details so this should not be a problem.
Follow up:
However if suppliers are still having
a) Is it possible to view the
problems they need to contact RSSB.
process flows in their original
Visio format? It is difficult to
follow some overlapping
links.
Item
41
42
Section
Event recording
& management
process
General
43
General
44
Implementation
45
Implementation
Specification
Appendix I – sub-event
template examples
Question from supplier
Answer from RSSB
How many sub-event
templates are likely to exist?
PS: This will be defined during the design
phase. Initial estimate is between 50 to
100.
RK: No, the concept of SMIS+ is based on
an off-the-shelf product enterprise
management system that can be easily
configured and maintained by RSSB
without having to go through further
development cycles.
The tender seems to be set
up with the methodology of
purchasing and adapting an
off the shelf system. Are the
RSSB open to the idea of a
bespoke greenfield
development project aimed
at meeting the requirements
in their entirety?
Is the plan for Network Rail
to use this system entirely?
Is there an opportunity to
combine the design and
build phases in some
respects in order to move
more efficiently?
How will we deal with key
sign-offs on design and what
is the potential time lag?
JB: Yes.
RK: Potentially, yes, we are looking for
proposal from the supplier with their
implementation plan which may or may
not be the same as RSSB's. Should the
supplier go for their own implementation
plan then justification would be needed as
to why this is a better plan.
RK and GB: We are consulting a lot with
the industry already, and there is a Project
Board with significant industry
representation that will act as a central
19
Item
Section
Specification
Question from supplier
46
Event recording
& management
process
How is the event description
created?
47
Future phases
48
Future phases
49
Future phases
Any plans to require linking
between modules and future
phase functionality, e.g.
linking risk assessment and
audits with safety events
CIRAS: Are the processes
within CIRAS different for
each member or sector?
What's the commercial
impact of those additional
CIRAS users?
20
Answer from RSSB
decision-making body to ensure this
project sticks to the challenging timescales
set by the industry. Time lags will be
specified by the SMIS+ project team e.g. 5
days for a review
JB and PS: Currently this is free text for the
user, we might want to put some rules
around it but this generally is selected
from the major (or latest) sub-events in
practice.
JB and PS: We are looking to learn from
safety events using as much related
information as possible. However, we
don't require this to be part of the event
chain initially.
PR: No, the processes are generic for all
members
PR and TD: There shouldn't be an impact
as CIRAS users won't separately be using
the system, so we don't expect a licensing
/ usage cost at the outset, just the days
consultancy we can get for future phases
of requirements.
Item
50
51
Section
Future phases
Future phases
Specification
Question from supplier
Answer from RSSB
Is the plan with SMIS+ to
interface with a mapping
tool? Is this in the spec
anywhere?
RK: There are plans to interface with
external mapping tools, however this is for
future phases when the data management
layer has matured and when risk modelling
requirements have been implemented.
This is not currently in the specification. In
the meantime we are after, for phase 1 to
5, the ability to use electronic maps for
identifying locations during the event
recording and management processes.
This will be built into the solution. The
functionality may interface with external
sources to bring in map data via a web
services mechanism e.g. google maps
TD: There is a separate cell in the cost
breakdown table where we encourage
tenderers to itemise any specific costs for
the mapping solution such as the use of
external map data (e.g. google maps)
Do we want to have a future JB: Potentially, long term we would like
facility for people to log NIR / these events to be logged once in one
Rail notices and SMIS+ in real system but this is not the initial scope.
time, at the same time?
21
Item
52
Section
Investigation
process
53
Functional
requirements
54
Functional
requirements
55
Tender
56
Training
Who will be responsible for
training on BI tools?
57
Support
Do we envisage users being
able to add additional fields
22
Specification
Question from supplier
Answer from RSSB
How are you envisaging that
you want the decisions in the
investigation management
process to happen?
Have we decided on a
hierarchical structure?
Including matrix and
traditional hierarchies?
RK: These decisions will follow industry
standards and processes.
Do we have any idea of the
types of mobile platforms
that will be used for SMIS+?
Is reducing overheads part of
the business case?
RK: We have some ideas, however, this will
need to be worked out during the design
phase.
RK: Yes, including both, the system will
need to be flexible.
RK: Primarily Android, iOS, some
organisations use Windows phones as part
of their IT policy
JB: It is not formally costed, we and our
industry stakeholders have identified the
opportunity.
JB: As with training generally, we are
looking for train the trainer training. This
will be to RSSB who will support and
develop the system. We would also
welcome suggestions of other media and
training methods to end users - this will be
a specific question.
JB: .We need the capability to create
bespoke fields by organisation.
Organisations will be able to make the
Item
Section
Specification
Question from supplier
Answer from RSSB
bespoke to their
organisation?
58
Non functionals
initial request for additional fields,
however RSSB would do that on a user's
behalf once the request has been
reviewed and approved.
Will other organisations have RK: Yes - all events are open to all
the ability to see all events?
organisations but as a read only. This will
allow the feedback loop to work. However
any personal information on the safety
event will need to be restricted to other
organisations.
B Questions and answers submitted before 28 July 2015
23
Item
1
Section
Tender
Specification
2
In regards to
question 4
previously
submitted
(requirement
7.12)
Incidents in SMIS+ will
create safety events based
on specified criteria
automatically.
Event
management
The system shall have the
ability to use different risk
matrices for different subevents.
3
24
Question from supplier
Would like to enquire as to
whether or not there are word
limits which apply to any of the
responses requested in the
SMIS+ tender document.
In regards to question 4 can
you please describe as to what
functions are required under
the term configuration.
Answer from RSSB
RK: There is no word limit to the responses.
However, some will require more wordings to
be provided than others. These should be
self-explanatory
Could you please explain how
you envisage group reporting
would work when there would
be several different matrices
being used for the difference
sub events?
PS: I’m not sure what is meant by the term
‘group reporting’. However we envisage one
user would have to fill in the risk matrix. If a
safety event had multiple sub events that
each wanted a different risk matrix, then
these would be managed separately via their
own workflows, but only one person would
take the lead in completing each risk matrix.
Question 4-
PS: Neither req 7.12 nor previous question 4
(or answer) mentions the term configuration.
However, there will be the need to maintain
business rules that will store the criteria on
how safety events will be created from
incidents.
4
Investigation
Management
Electronic Signoff
The system shall allow
multiple electronic sign-offs
on an investigation report.
5
Integration with
Incident files
The system shall
automatically flag cancelled
incident records which have
associated safety events that
are still active. The user shall
then be required to
acknowledge the flag, in
orders to confirm the
cancellation.
In regards to req 3.16 in
reference to the ability to
electronically sign off the
event. Is this referring to an
electronic signature? Or simply
the ability to check something
to indicate sign off has taken
place?
Could you please elaborate on
req 7.17?
PS: This refers to an electronic signature,
which can then be shown on any electronic
and published reports. There will also be a
status indicator that will show the
investigation report has been signed off.
PS: This requirement is to deal with the
scenario, where an event has been created in
CCIL (incident record) from which a safety
event has been created in SMIS+, and then
later, the originating record in CCIL has been
cancelled. In this scenario, we want SMIS+ to
alert the user that the originating CCIL
incident record has been cancelled. It will
then be left up to the SMIS+ user to decide
what to do with the safety event record.
25
6
7
26
Reporting and BI
Reporting and BI
The system shall have the
ability to handle the
following data sets to be
used in reporting and BI:
-safety event data
- legacy data
- reference data
- organisation specific data
- normalisers
- admin data
- statistical techniques
- calculations
- definitions
- GIS data
The system should give users
the ability to link a
scheduled transformation in
the reporting and business
intelligence module with a
scheduled report, so that a
report automatically runs on
the completion of a
transformation.
In regards to req 9.6 could you
please elaborate on what is
meant by ‘admin data’ and
‘statistical techniques’?
PS: Admin data – we would like any of the
admin log data that the system is recording
to be made available to the reporting and BI
tools e.g. audit trail which would include
tracking of who has changed what and when.
This will be a key part of the data required in
the data quality monitoring reports.
Statistical techniques – we are looking to be
able to apply statistical tests to the data
when running the BI software tools on the
SMIS+ data. These include, but are not
limited to, significance and hypothesis
testing, forecasting, time series analysis,
classifications, clustering.
In reference to req 9.31 what is
meant by ‘transformation’?
PS: An example might be one of our data
models, which takes input data on a monthly
basis from a number of external sources. This
is then combined with internal data sources
into a new single “common language” data
set which is then passed into a model and the
latest results reported. These activities need
to automatically follow on from each other.
8
Reporting and BI
The system shall have the
ability to include, store and
view meta data and criteria
of individual charts and
whole publications.
Could you please elaborate on
req 9.42?
9
Functional system
service requests
The system shall allow
admin users to write, amend
and delete definitions of
terms used across the
system.
Req 10.5 mentions the ability
to write, amend and delete
'definitions of terms' what is
meant by this?
PS: Whenever a report or chart is created we
want to be able to capture the criteria that
was used to generate it, the snapshot that
was used and the details of the user who
created it and when. Additionally, the user
might want to add some of their own user
generated meta-data, for example details of
any assumptions they made while carrying
out the analysis. This is particularly important
when the analysis is revisited some time
later.
PS: As part of our data design work, we will
be producing a set of definitions of fields and
values. We would like these to be added and
used across SMIS+. To ensure they stay up to
date an admin user will need to be able to
write, amend and delete them.
27
10
Safety event
The calculations will be
based either on the data
entered for the risk matrix,
other data previously
recorded in the safety event
or data stored in lookup
tables. The calculations must
include all standard
mathematical functions such
as addition, subtraction,
multiplication, division, logs
and powers. The calculations
should be able to run as
scripts as they could involve
case statements, loops or
nests (if statements)
Please could the RSSB provide
an example of this?
PS: Appendix M in the high level
requirements specification document, sets
out the current SPAD Risk Ranking Tool
(SSRT), which is the risk matrix for SPAD
events. Currently the SSRT is being reviewed
and some of the proposals include rewriting it
to use more advanced scripts using case
statements, loops and nests.
11
IFC
The system shall allow
association of the event with
specific studies (e.g. ‘review
of international rail events’;
‘detailed review of station
stopping incidents’; ‘human
factors high risk sample’).
With regards to specific
studies, are these external to
SMIS+, or managed within
SMIS+?
PS: It is envisioned that the tagging of safety
events to studies will take place in SMIS+, the
data would then be extracted via the
reporting and BI tools.
The results of the study might then be loaded
back into the data management layer and will
be used for reporting purposes.
28
12
Recommendation, The system shall provide the
task and action
facility for users to view and
tracking
track tasks, actions and
recommendations assigned
to them.
Do the RSSB expect that this
would extend to the mobile
applications in an offline
capacity?
PS: It is envisaged that there will be a major
benefit of users being able to view and track
tasks, actions via a mobile device. It is not a
requirement for this to be offline.
13
Functional
requirements
Please could the RSSB provide
an example output of this
information?
PS: This will be defined during the data design
phase, but this will take the form of a number
of events per ‘filter’ from which the user can
drill into a list of safety events, and then into
a specific safety event. E.g. Number of “open”
safety events for Network Rail’s
infrastructure team working on the Southern
Route.
The system shall provide the
facility to view safety events
by status and org hierarchy
at all levels and units.
29
14
15
Functional system
service requests
Functional system
service requests
The system shall allow
admin users to control
access rights for each field.
Access to fields will either
apply to all users or to users
of a specific organisation.
The system shall allow
admin users to implement
and maintain business rules
associated to the workflows.
Please could the RSSB provide
an example for this
requirement, and specifically
what is the purpose of a
reporting field if users are
restricted from using it?
Please could the RSSB provide
examples of the business rules,
or likely examples if not yet
known?
PS: This means that SMIS+ might have fields
that only one organisation can see and use,
as the information being collected is specific
to that organisation only. This will then be
available for the organisation to report on.
E.g. Internal information relating to their
wider organisation or parent company
All requests for new fields will be submitted
to the central admin team. This will go
through a review process where it will be
decided whether or not the field should be
added. In a number of cases the field may
even become a system wide field rather than
just an organisation specific one.
PS: These will be defined during the data
design phase.
It is likely that safety events occurring in
yards, depots and sidings, will require less
information then a similar event on a running
line. So those on a running line might trigger
a further set fields that will need to be
completed as part of data collection.
We also envisage determining the RIDDOR
reportability via a set of business rules.
30
16
System admin
17
Lessons learnt
18
Implementation
plan
The system shall have a
model of programme and
project hierarchies for each
organisation, where
applicable. The project
structure will be mapped to
organisation structures. The
mapping will be part of the
design phase.
Please could the RSSB explain
why they have project and
programme as an extension of
organisation hierarchy, rather
than separate entities which
are related? Are there not
cases when a project or
programme would cut across
multiple organisations?
The system shall present the
finds of the investigation
into the safety event(s) and
the most effective way to
prevent its reoccurrence
What is the measure of 'most
effective' as this implies that
whatever was done to prevent
re occurrence has been tested?
We understand through time
the SRM would be able to
support this, but are there
other measures we should be
aware of?
Structure of the
implementation plan has been
queried. Would a more iterative
approach from Day 1 benefit
the implementation?
PS: We don’t see project and programmes as
an extension of the organisation hierarchy.
We see them as separate yet related entities.
The line ‘project structure will be mapped to
organisation structures’ was a recognition
that there will be relationships between
them, and that we want to capture those
relationships.
PS: How this information will be identified
has yet to be determined as this is a future
phase requirement. Only outcome based
requirement have been captured for the
future phases.
There are no specific measures identified at
this time. A possible way of achieving
effectiveness could even be via a manual
review of the recommendations with
feedback being captured back into the
system.
RK: RSSB have recognised this and, after
consultation with the rail industry and other
stakeholders, have published an alternative
plan that is based on an iterative design and
build approach that will still be able to
incorporate industry wide consultations.
31
C Questions and answers submitted after 28 July 2015
Item
1
32
Section
Pricing schedule
Specification
Question from supplier
We would like to propose a
single cost along with a
description of what that cost
includes. This is for the
following reasons:
Our proposed solution
already has much of the
capability required, even for
the post phase 5
requirements
Our cost for the system
includes multiple elements
such as hosting, mobile and
BI
Our proposed agile approach
to implementation of SMIS+
does not lend itself well to
the line items detailed.
Answer from RSSB
TD: We ask suppliers to break down the costs in a common
format in order that we can understand in granular detail the
constituent elements of the cost, which we will discuss during
the commercial session of the dialogue day with each selected
tenderer in order to challenge unnecessary functionality and
cost from tenderers’ solutions during the competitive dialogue.
- Total cost of ownership is a significant evaluation criterion,
weighted at 38% of the total score. Therefore, being able to
break down, understand and remove cost benefits both RSSB
and tenderers - as tenderers will achieve a higher score against
this criterion in the evaluation because the total cost of their
solution will be lower.
- All costs must be contained within the schedule provided,
though we encourage additional breakdowns and explanations
of any assumptions.
- If a tenderer’s solution does not incur additional cost (or cost
is limited) for certain activities, please only specify the cost that
is required or mark £0 if that activity does not incur cost.
Appendix A: Organisation structure hierarchy
The following example is an organisation hierarchy that is defined in the current CCS system.
Contractor organisations have agreed to log all close call type of safety events arising during their work on Network Rail infrastructure projects.
The larger contractor organisations are split into ‘divisions’, either geographically or by the type of work they do.
For example Spence Refit is split into the following divisions:
1.
Commercial Property
2.
Greater Anglia
3.
Kent Maintenance
4.
London Midland
5.
London Overground
6.
Southern Railways
7.
Spence Projects and Sussex Maintenance
These divisions are then linked to the Network Rail projects that they are involved in (i.e. in this example the Network Rail projects become the
third level – sub divisions - of the organisation hierarchy). See screen shot below:
33
At present all Network Rail projects are stored in a manually updated flat table. Each has a unique Network Rail project ID. This allows Network
Rail to extract data against their projects, as well as allowing the contractors to extract data by their organisation divisions.
Appendix B: - Example of a remit
NR Formal
Investigation Remit template.doc
34