1 6 th june 2011 dab da event post event review dab communications sub-group

1

6th June 2011

DAB DA EVENT POST EVENT REVIEWDAB Communications sub-group

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


•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


•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


• 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


•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


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


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


•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


•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


•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


•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


•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


•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


•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

33

Event Feedback Results

1 6 th june 2011 dab da event post event review dab communications sub-group

Documents

footer sectionchallenges

day attributioninfluence

day attributionfollow

day attributiondisputes

definition of day

day attributionover

delay attribution process

backdelay attribution