The classification has been reviewed in < 12> <2018>.

People that reviewed the team skills were <SAM> <Shailendra Shahi>

RAM &SAFETY Team - Resources & Skills

OTHER STANDARDS (Arema,…)

SAFETY ISSUE MANAGEMENT
SAFETY PLAN & ORGANIZE
Projects /

SCHEDULE and WP MGT

VERIFICATION REPORTS
Safety

FUNCTIONAL TESTING
Product /

SEEA, CCR, ANALYSIS

Major SI + resolution
CENELEC SANDARDS

VALIDATION REPORT
Managemen HW Analysis SW Analysis Safety V&V SAM role

HAZARD ANALYSIS

ISA MANAGEMENT
System
t

SW PRINCIPLES

SIL ALLOCATION

FTA or MARKOV
Analysis

CENELEC STD

SAFETY CASE

HAZARD LOG
HW-SW TEST
LANGUAGES
LAB TESTS
AUDITS

FMEA

FMEA
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Nandhini Nagaraja 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2.5 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.75 3 3 2 3
Rishi Marathu 3.75 4 4 4 3 3.5 4 3 4 3 3.75 4 4 3 4 3.25 4 3 3 3 3.25 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4

LEGEND (see detailed explanation below): INSTRUCTIONS:

"0": low knowledge and no experience Skills Matrix Updating

"1": low capabilities, low knowledge and low experience At least once per year, before appraisals
"2": medium capabilities, medium knowledge and medium experience In case of Organisation changes
"3" good capabilities, good knowledge and wide experience In case of team re-arrengements
"4" oustanding capabilities and knowledge; more than 10 years of experience

Safety 1 - Safety (and V&V) Plan definition (organisation), Link between Skills Matrix and Job Grading
Management: 2 - activity schedule, WP Management JG A to Safety Engineers
3 - safety issue management , JG B1 to Projects/S&P SAMs
4 - conducting audit and reviews JG B2 (or higher) to System Assurance manager

HW Analysis: 1 - component FMEA and analysis

2 - safety laboratory test, Minum SCORES for SAM (Projects or S&P)
3 - CENELEC EN50129/EN50124/IS402 compliance, SAMs shall be scored "at a minimun":
4 - MIL-STD-882, IEEE and AREMA compliance (for US) 2.5 in Safety Management, Product/Project System Analysis and SAM Areas;
For strong people; score beteween 1.75 and 2.5 in only one area is allowed
SW Analysis: 1 - CENELEC EN50128 compliance, Score > 1.5 in the remaining Areas (e.g. HW Analys, SW Analysis, V&V)
2 - SEEA, CCR, Code verification, Software safety analysis technics
3 - NISAL/Monop/2oo2/2oo3 principles and analysis (adaptation by site)
4 - Programming language knowledge

Safety V&V: 1 - Verification Reports, Minum SCORES for SAM - Developments under sustaining
2 - Functional Testing, SAMs shall be scored "at a minimun":
3 - SW, HW Testing 2.0 in Safety Management and SAM Areas;
4 - Validation Reports For strong people; score between 1.5 and 2 in only one area is allowed
Score > 1.5 in the remaining Areas (HW/SW Analysis, V&V, System Anal.)
Lower score is allowed in areas not impacted by modifications
 Minum SCORES for SAM - Developments under sustaining
SAMs shall be scored "at a minimun":
2.0 in Safety Management and SAM Areas;
For strong people; score between 1.5 and 2 in only one area is allowed
Score > 1.5 in the remaining Areas (HW/SW Analysis, V&V, System Anal.)
Project/Product 1 - Hazard identification analysis (PHA, IHA, SHA, HAZOP, AERA, OSHA…) Lower score is allowed in areas not impacted by modifications
System 2 - Allocation of SIL
Analysis: 3 - System FMEA
4 - FTA / Event tree, other (markov)…

SAM role: 1 - Safety Case production (or equivalent),

2 - Hazard Log mgt,
3 - major safety issue identification and
resolution,
4 - ISA support (internal and external)

The Skill Matrix is a very simple tool, having only 4 level of scores.
The scores remain mainly qualitative but they allow also:
-- to record strength areas
-- to measure improvements year by year and to focus on developments areas.

The score is the average of 3 main axes:

Capabilities: measure the perceived potential: (e.g. very clever person, able to learn very quick and with very good technical background, so as it is deemed he/she can
be able to cover an area in short/medium term starting without having specific knowledge and experience)
0-->no potential in that specific area (e.g. no way to learn SW, mind set completely oriented to HW)
1-->low potential (e.g. able to perform simple activities but strongly supported and using more WL than what required)
2-->Medium Potential (e.g. able to learn quick, good background, it is deemed he/she can afford the required activities in the specific area with limited support)
3-->high potential (e.g. quick learner having very good technical background, it is deemed he/she is able to cover areas in short/medium term starting without having
specific knowledge and experience)

Knowledge: measure what the person really knows:

0-->no Knowledge
1-->Partial academic background or basic awareness
2-->Complete academic background and demonstrated in the job
3-->Master the area and recognised as mentor for young people

Experience: measure what the person has already done:

0-->no experience
1--> limited experience or first experience- supported by senior
2--> more than 2 complete and complex activities with limited support from seniors (high level review or specific point support). Able to control subcontracted activities.
3-->able to perform autonomously complex activities and to propose process improvements, recognised internally/externally as reference person in the area under
evaluation.
 Safety Co

Nandhini
Nagarajan

Safety Management
4

3
SAM role HW Analysis
2

c
1

Projects / Product / SW Analysis

System
Analysis

Safety V&V
Safety Competency Graph

Rishi Marathu

Safety Management Safety Manageme

4 4

3 3
SAM role HW Analysis SAM role
2 2

c c
1 1

0 0

Projects / Product / SW Analysis Projects / Product /

System System
Analysis Analysis

Safety V&V Safety V&V

 Safety Management
4

3
SAM role HW Analysis
2

c
1

Product / SW Analysis

Safety V&V