L1-NPD-PRO-002 v8 - Works Readiness Procedure

WORKS READINESS PROCEDURE
L1-NPD-PRO-002 Version 8 Effective from: 18th July 2018
Approval
Name Position Signature
Document Works Readiness

Stacey Jeffery
Author Co-ordinator
Project Director
Rob Green
Strategic Planning
Executive Director
Peter Gleeson
Projects
Document
Endorsers Executive Director
Neal Lawson Integration &
Transformation
Executive Director
Todd Bentley Safety, Engineering
and Environment
General Manager
Frank Fullick
Infrastructure
Approving Chief Executive

Raymond O’Flaherty
Manager Officer
Amendment Record
Approval Date Version Description

19/10/2011 1 Initial MTM issue
12/12/2011 2 Amended to include SQE comments
Amended to reflect trialled rationalisation of WRCs and changes to

14/01/2013 3
process
20/06/2013 4 Introduction of T-20 Stage gate & Works Readiness Business Rules
03/10/2013 5 Clarification of Business Rules & (T-x) definitions
26/09/2014 6 Removal of WIC references, updated business rules
15/06/2016 7 Review of text and inclusion of risk level definitions.
Update definitions of High, Medium and Low Risk.

Updated hierarchical relationship flowchart.
Added “how to calculate” T- dates.
Reordered Business Rules.
Updated Business Rules 1, 2 & 4.
18/07/2018 8
Removed Business Rule 3 and 5 (added within Business Rule 2).
Added Business Rule.
Added Peer Review Practice as Appendix.
Added Self-Assessment Risk Rating Example as Appendix.
Approving Manager: Chief Executive Officer Approval Date: 18/07/2018 Next Review Date: 18/07/2021
PRINTOUT MAY NOT BE UP-TO-DATE; REFER TO METRO INTRANET FOR THE LATEST VERSION Page 1 of 19
Table of Contents
1. Purpose .........................................................................................................3
2. Scope .............................................................................................................3
3. Abbreviations and Acronyms ......................................................................5
4. Definitions .....................................................................................................5
5. Responsibilities ............................................................................................6
6. Process ..........................................................................................................7
6.1 WRC Checklist ........................................................................................... 7
6.2 Escalation .................................................................................................. 9
7. Works Readiness Business Rules ..............................................................9
7.1 Business Rule #1: Date and limits of Occupations to be endorsed by T- 8

weeks......................................................................................................... 9
7.2 Business Rule #2: Issued for Construction (IFC) design for all commissioning
works to be approved by T-5 weeks ........................................................... 9
7.3 Business Rule #3: Any works identified through Business Rule #2 MUST
request a formal Independent Risk Review (IRR) ......................................10
7.4 Business Rule #4: Program, Contingency and Escalation including Peer
Reviews completed by T-5 weeks .............................................................10
8. Works Readiness Risk Rating ................................................................... 11
9. Documentation / References...................................................................... 12
10. Appendices ................................................................................................. 13
1. Purpose
The purpose of this procedure is to detail the internal Metro Trains Melbourne (MTM)
governance process which enables the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to:
• Have full confidence (and supporting documentation) that planned work packages
are in an appropriate state of readiness before works commence
• Postpone the commencement of work packages (through the Executive Director
Integration and Transformation) if the planned works are not in an appropriate state
of readiness
This document details the required process to demonstrate the readiness of works
planned to be undertaken on the MTM Network. Readiness will be assessed by an
MTM Committee representing various divisions and disciplines of the business. The
process of assessment is described in this document.
This procedure is to be used in conjunction with the Works Readiness Committee
(WRC) checklist.
In addition, this procedure articulates the MTM Business Rules (endorsed by the CEO)
which underpin the Works Readiness procedure, for which there are no delegations of
responsibility.
Note: This procedure, in no manner whatsoever, provides an authority or approval to
conduct any works contrary to published MTM policies and procedures. Persons
conducting works shall not deem this procedure as a substitute for any aspect of any
other MTM policy or procedure, or that this procedure in any way removes from them,
responsibilities imposed on them by any other MTM policy or procedure. At all times, if
a requirement of this procedure conflicts with any other MTM policy or procedure, the
other MTM policy or procedure shall prevail.
2. Scope
With an increasing volume of work and associated requirements for track access
occurring on the MTM Network, there is a greater need to ensure the readiness of
commissioning, operational and maintenance requirements prior to any works being
conducted, handed back or placed into operational service.
The objective of this procedure is to assist with:
• Mitigation of the risk of late cancellation of works resulting in elimination of
unwarranted service disruption
• Improvement in the standard of testing & commissioning plans and associated
documentation enabling timely identification, allocation and efficient use of limited
resources
• Improvement in the operating condition and reliability of the MTM Network post-
commissioning including significantly reducing the risk of unplanned over-runs
Note: This document does not remove the need for individual rolling stock, project or
infrastructure renewals activities to undergo business as usual risk assessments,
design reviews, commissioning countdowns or other stakeholder reviews / discussions
to ensure safe and compliant implementation of works.
This document applies to all MTM Rolling Stock, MTM Projects division, and MTM
Infrastructure Delivery division renewal works if any of the following apply:
• Planned works that will alter operational assets or bring into service new operational
assets
• Works that have the ability to significantly disrupt the performance of operational
assets
• Planned works that require a disruptive occupation
• Infrastructure renewal activities qualifying for application of the Works Readiness
procedure include:
o Structures and Facilities:
• Rail bridge / superstructure replacement
• Subway replacement
• Footbridge replacement
• Permanent bridge substructure replacement
• Station roofs
• Escalator step chain replacement
• Retaining walls
• Partial upgrade works to platforms
• Major upgrade works to stations
o Operational Control Systems
• Closed circuit television (CCTV) workstation upgrade
• Train radio system (base stations and handheld radios)
o Electrical Networks
• 22kV AC Transmission
• Tramway square crossing and switch
• Tramway square overhead crossing upgrade
o Signals
• 25Hz power supply replacement
• Search light signals
• Incandescent signal replacement with LED
o Track
• Concrete resleepering (tie renewal)
• Main line turnouts (points and crossing) replace using 60Kg rail in concrete
• Rerailing (outside of defect works)
• Siding renewals
• Pedestrian crossing renewal – Active
• Level crossings – Reconstruct
• Running track - Reconstruct station pit
• Tramway square
Note: Infrastructure Early Week Night Occupations (EWNOs) readiness is assessed

outside of the Works Readiness process on the understanding these works deliver
maintenance and renewal activities.
Unplanned urgent works are excluded from the Works Readiness process due to
inadequate timeframes. Risk to the operational railway will need to be considered
outside of this process.
3. Abbreviations and Acronyms

ARMS Access Resource Management System
CRC Critical Resource Committee
EWNO Early Week Night Occupation
IFC Issued for Construction
IRR Independent Risk Review
MTM Metro Trains Melbourne
OC Occupations Committee
OCS Operational Control System
PM Project Manager
PTF Permit to Foul
WRC Works Readiness Committee
4. Definitions
Checklist: A self-reported document, providing visibility of compliance as per the stage
gate deliverables of operational readiness leading up to planned works.
Disruptive Occupation: The closure of a portion of a corridor that will disrupt
timetabled train services and could require alternative transport services (such as
buses) to be put in place.
Green-dot Status: Allocation of a ‘Green-dot’ to a package of works on the Works
Readiness Visualisation report shows that a work group has met all defined process
deliverables within the necessary timeframes.
High Risk: Any works that score between ten and twenty five on the composite score
table (Severity V Frequency) within the Enterprise Risk Management Procedure
(L0-SQE-PRO-031).
Independent Review: Program assessment to be performed by a competent,
unbiased person with little / no influence over the Work Group.
Issued For Construction (IFC): Final design report including:
• Accredited Rail Operator (ARO) acceptance of the table listing the variance to
standards
• Safety In Design (SID) registers and associated report
• Final drawings suitable for construction purposes
• Consolidated comments sheet closed out by subject matter expert
Further details for IFC are referenced in the latest MTM Design and Technical Review
Procedure L1-NAM-PRO-002 (this document should be read in conjunction with the
latest Signalling Design Technical Review Procedure L1-CHE-PRO-035).
Low Risk: Any works that score between one and four on the composite score table
(Severity V Frequency) within the Enterprise Risk Management Procedure.
Medium Risk (Watch and Act): Any works that score between five and nine on the
composite score table (Severity V Frequency) within the Enterprise Risk Management
Procedure.
MTM Network: All operational assets noted in the Franchise Agreement excluding
Rolling Stock.
Operational Asset: A physical (including software) asset that is utilised in the delivery
of MTM services. This includes Rolling Stock, stations, mainline tracks, sidings, signals,
level crossings, substations, traction supply overheads, bridges, structures, signal
boxes, communication huts, control systems, communication systems and the rail
reserve.
Project: Covers all project and renewal-type works undertaken by MTM Projects
Delivery, Rolling Stock, Infrastructure Delivery and other Third Party stakeholders.
Project Manager (PM): Refers to the manager accountable for a package of works,
inclusive of external contractors and third parties.
Red-cross Status: Allocation of a ‘Red-cross’ to a package of works on the Works
Readiness Visualisation report accounts for the failure to meet defined process
deliverables by the necessary timeframes.
Work/s: Any activity conducted on / about the MTM Network that is not directly related
to the delivery of MTM operational revenue services or business-as-usual / day-to-day
maintenance activities.
Works Package: Planned scope of work identified to be completed within one work
event. This work is one of many works that make up a project.
5. Responsibilities
To achieve the purpose, the MTM WRC meets weekly to assess the readiness of
identified packages of Work.
The WRC validates the readiness of works via the Works Readiness checklist
submissions from the works owner at the planned stage gate review timescales (* T-
20, T-12, T-8, T-5 and T-3 weeks) via an agreed set of criteria and forms a single view
as to the readiness of each work package. This is undertaken in conjunction with a
readiness status provided from the Occupation Committee (OC) and the Critical
Resource Committee (CRC). The role and terms of reference of the OC are outlined in
the Occupation Management Procedure (Planning & Schedule Control) L1-PRJ-PRO-
003. The role of the CRC is outlined in the Critical Resource Committee terms of
reference L4-PRJ-TOR-008.
*Where ‘T’ equals the start date of the individual package of Works and / or occupation.
The assessments from the three committees (WRC, OC and CRC) will form the
recommendation to proceed or cancel planned works and / or detail any immediate
actions required with an owner and completion date.
The criteria by which readiness is assessed are set out in the WRC checklist.
The hierarchical relationship of all the committees is shown in the organisational chart
below:
Executive Director
Integration and Transformation
↓
High Risk / Long Term Occupations Committee
WORKS READINESS VISUALISATION

↓ ↓ ↓
Occupations Works Critical

Committee Readiness Resource
(OC) Committee Committee
(WRC) (CRC)
6. Process
The first step of the Works Readiness process is to ascertain if a work package qualifies
to be submitted through the Works Readiness process. This is achieved through work
group self-assessment against the deliverables outlined in the Works Readiness
checklist. Answering in the affirmative to any of the defined criteria will require the work
package to continue through the Works Readiness process.
Siding disruptions during normal train running without alteration to the working
timetable require an approved Access and Resource Management System (ARMS)
submission and endorsement from the Manager of Timetable Delivery, no later than
ten (10) working days prior to the start date of works. Siding disruptions that impact on
stabling arrangements / require rerouting of trains qualify for the Works Readiness
process.
6.1 WRC Checklist

The WRC checklist identifies not only the deliverables required, but the stage gates by
which they must have occurred.
The WRC Checklist can be obtained via the MTM intranet or upon request to the Works
Readiness Coordinator. It is incumbent on each PM to complete (or update) the
checklist and submit to the WRC by 23:59 hours Friday (T-20, T-12, T-8, T-5 and T-3),
via Works.Readiness@metrotrains.com.au, for review at the following week’s WRC.
The T- week (stage gate) is calculated by the commencement date of the occupation
minus today’s date. This is highlighted on the Works Readiness Visualisation weekly.
Failure to meet the timescales will result in an automatic red-cross condition from the
WRC.
The Works Readiness chair ensures a weekly distribution of all Works Readiness
checklists received at least one (1) business day in advance of the WRC. The WRC
attendees are to review checklist submissions in advance of the meeting and be
prepared to validate / contest the PM’s assertions of readiness at the WRC.
Where a PM makes a submission that is, by the work group’s own admission, not ready
(i.e. a Red-cross status), the PM may be asked by the WRC chair to represent the work
group at the WRC to explain:
• The reasons for non-compliance to the process
• A case for continued planning to current timescales
This may also be required if the work group reports ‘ready’ (i.e. a Green-dot status),
but the status of readiness is challenged by the WRC.
The WRC must provide a weekly status report to the Executive Director Integration and
Transformation, via the MTM Visualisation process, of all works reviewed / to be
reviewed for readiness. This process uses ‘Red-cross’ and ‘Green-dot’ indicators to
clearly visualise the status, and if applicable, actions with names and dates must also
be displayed. Each of these indicators is a high level summary of the more detailed
review undertaken by the WRC on a weekly basis.
The WRC reviews are based on assessment against set criteria at defined stage gates.
The stage gate checklists are set at T-20, T-12, T-8, T-5 and T-3 weeks. The stage
gate timescales have been set to achieve a balance between what MTM needs to
ensure the integrity of the system can be maintained, while recognising work group
constraints with lead times for document preparation, material, plant and procurement,
etc.
The T-5 stage gate is acknowledged as the ‘Go / No-Go’ stage gate for work packages
and, more specifically, occupations (T-5 being the last opportunity to reinstate network
services should the works be postponed and associated occupation cancelled). Works
failing the T-5 stage gate should be considered by the owner of the works for complete
deferral to an alternative future date to ensure passenger impact / network disruption
is minimised. Post T-5, works not meeting required Works Readiness deliverables may
be required to be de-scoped at the direction of the Executive Director Integration and
Transformation to reduce operational risk.
It is important to note that a work group may have several significant work packages,
commissionings, disruptive occupations and bringing equipment into service on a
number of different dates throughout the work group lifecycle. For the purpose of Works
Readiness reviews and stage gate assessment, these must be treated individually, and
a checklist must be completed for each of the distinct stages of work unless prior
agreement is agreed with WRC.
Likewise, an occupation may be utilised by a number of unrelated workgroups such as
a Permit To Foul (PTF) workgroup. Some / all / none of these groups may have
individual obligations to the Works Readiness process, and therefore are required to
submit their own checklist.
It is also important to note that a package of work that requires assessment by WRC,
does not necessarily require assessment against all criteria (i.e. a new piece of
equipment to be commissioned into service would require T&C and design
assessment, however, it may be like-for-like equipment and therefore not alter
operational or maintenance requirements).
The Works Readiness chair then ensures all updates are captured from the WRC and
are issued to the broader Works Readiness stakeholder group, including PMs, in
preparation for the weekly Works Readiness Visualisation.
6.2 Escalation
Where a readiness status is contested between a PM and the WRC, this issue will be
discussed at the weekly Visualisations (refer to Works Readiness Visualisation terms
of reference L4-PRJ-TOR-007). If no resolution can be made this can, and should be
escalated to the fortnightly High Risk / Long Terms Occupations Committee for
resolution (refer to High Risk Long Term Occupations Committee Terms of Reference
L4-PRJ-TOR-00).
7. Works Readiness Business Rules

The Works Readiness Business Rules (B.R.) define ‘Go / No-Go’ timescales for
particular process deliverables. The consequences of non-compliance are detailed
below.
7.1 Business Rule #1: Date and limits of Occupations to be endorsed by T- 8 weeks
In accordance with the Occupation Management Procedure (L1-PRJ-PRO-003),
disruptive occupation limits and dates should be defined prior to T-20 weeks as part of
the indicative protection diagram/s submitted with a disruptive occupation application.
In accordance with the Works Readiness checklist, the above is reviewed for
compliance and endorsed (by the Occupations Committee) at T-12 weeks.
Failure to achieve compliance by T-8 weeks may result in the cancellation of the
occupation (Director of Operations and Director of Passenger Experience informed).
7.2 Business Rule #2: Issued for Construction (IFC) design for all commissioning
works to be approved by T-5 weeks
• In accordance with the Works Readiness checklist, IFC status for design is
required by T-5 weeks.
• Subject to IRR endorsement for the continued planning of the works, failure to
achieve compliance (i.e. IFC) by T-3 weeks without dispensation approved or
documented via the IRR process may result in the de-scoping of the works
• Signalling data changes taking place in after passage of last train – before
passage of first train (ALBF) occupations are subject to T-5 IFC business rule
• The work group will carry the operational cost risk (in accordance with the
Operational Cost Sharing Guidelines in the Absolute Occupation Request
Procedure L1-PRJ-PRO-003)
* In exceptional circumstances and by explicit agreement of the Chief Engineer’s
office, the T-5 IFC business rule may be extended to T-1 weeks provided the
signalling modification / defects are a result of:
a) Correction of a defect which is critical from a safety/operational
perspective.
OR
b) Correcting a defect identified during a signalling commissioning
immediately after that event to avoid loss of continuity in the knowledge
and capability of the team that executed the original work.
Further conditions by the Chief Engineer’s office as follows:
• The signalling modifications must be limited in scope, fully understood and have
limited novelty and complexity
• The balance of risk to the operational railway has been assessed, taking into
account reasons for qualification of exceptional circumstances and potential to
introduce further defects as a result of the accelerated timescale
• The requirements for IFC (B.R. #2) and contingency plans (B.R. #4) must still
be assessed to ensure a complete and acceptable design for the correction is
available
• The requirements for an independently reviewed contingency plan must still be
assessed to ensure complete and acceptable testing and commissioning
planning has occurred
• Approval to reduce the deadline for IFC no later than T-1 weeks and signalling
contingency plan to no later than T-2 days may be granted by the Head of
Engineering – Signals and OCS. Shorter timescales will require the explicit
approval of the Chief Engineer
7.3 Business Rule #3: Any works identified through Business Rule #2 MUST request
a formal Independent Risk Review (IRR)
• Any works in breach of Business Rule #2 will be required to request an IRR
o For signalling and train control commissioning works, failure to achieve
compliance by T-5 stage gate triggers the requirement for Business Rule #2
(with the IRR requirement to be requested by the Office of the Chief
Engineer in accordance with L1-CHE-TOR-002) *
o For electrical and track / civil works, failure to achieve compliance by T-3
stage gate triggers the requirement for Business Rule #2 (with the IRR to
be led by the Chief Engineer / nominee)
• This action will be minuted and the outcomes of the IRR should be circulated to
the Executive Director of Integration and Transformation. Further details for
Independent Risk Reviews are referenced in the latest MTM Independent Risk
Review terms of reference L1-CHE-TOR-002
7.4 Business Rule #4: Program, Contingency and Escalation including Peer Reviews
completed by T-5 weeks
• High Risk works are subject to a review of the adequacy of planned program,
contingency and escalation arrangements
• Planned program, contingency and escalation arrangements must be
documented in the Occupation Works Guides or in Works / Commissioning
Plans if works not performed under occupation
• As part of the planning process all works must include a review of the program,
contingency and escalation arrangements. Works rated High Risk through the
Enterprise Risk Matrix must have an independent review performed in a formal
and documented manner
This process is to be a Peer Review [Refer to appendix A “Peer Review Practice”].
8. Works Readiness Risk Rating

The Works Readiness Visualisation highlights works as High, Medium and Low Risk.
The owner of the works will self-assess and report their risk rating via their Works
Readiness checklist at T-20 weeks using the Enterprise Risk Matrix within the
Enterprise Risk Management Procedure (L0-SQE-PRO-031). The risk rating is not
deemed by compliance, rather analysing what the operational risk is to MTM if these
works are not completed as per plan [refer to appendix B “Self-assessment Risk Rating
– Example”]. The WRC may choose to refute the self-assessment and request further
justification. The risk rating will be required to be continually reviewed at each checklist
submission and adjusted, with justification, if necessary.
Any works identified as a High Risk require notification to the MTM Executive.
If stipulated by the Director of Integration and Transformation, conference calls during
the works may be required, to monitor progress against a quantitative program allowing
the implementation of operational.
Responsible, Accountable, Consulted and Informed (RACI) for Works Readiness Risk
Rating Assessment
Responsible Work Group
Accountable Program Manager
Consulted Works Readiness Committee
Infrastructure Resource Committee
Occupations Committee
Informed Works Readiness Visualisation
High Risk / Long Term Occupations Committee
MTM Executive
9. Documentation / References
The principal documents relied upon for the preparation of this procedure includes:
• L0-SQE-PRO-031 Enterprise Risk Management Procedure
• L1-CHE-TOR-002 Independent Risk Review TOR
• L1-CHE-PRO-035 Signalling Design Technical Review Procedure
• L1-NAM-PRO-002 Design and Technical Review Procedure
• L1-PRJ-PRO-003 Absolute Occupation Request Procedure
• L4-NPD-FOR-005 Works Readiness Committee Checklist
• L4-PRJ-TOR-003 Works Readiness Committee TOR
• L4-PRJ-TOR-007 Works Readiness Visualisation TOR
• L4-PRJ-TOR-006 High Risk Long Term Occupations Committee TOR
• L4-PRJ-TOR-008 Critical Resource Committee TOR
10. Appendices
Appendix A
Peer Review Practice

This Peer Review Practice has been introduced following the significant increase in
volume and complexity of works happening on the rail network, which are forecast to
continue in the medium to long term. Occupation overruns have occurred resulting in
significant impact to passengers. The purpose of this process is to define a program
peer review to which any works applicable to the Works Readiness process are subject.
This review will identify works that are considered a High Risk to the occupation
program. Identification of High Risk will require the program to be critiqued to ensure
an adequate level of contingency and contingency planning. The review will provide the
Project Director confidence that the works are operationally ready with minimal risk to
handback. Prior to T-5 weeks from the commencement of the works, a decision will be
made by the Project Director and / or the responsible MTM director of any changes
required to help mitigate highlighted risks based on the nominated Subject Matter
Expert (SME) review.
The Peer Review Practice applies to all works which involve the commissioning of a
significant configuration change to the operational railway, the commissioning of and /
or bringing into service any new network assets or require a disruptive occupation and
/ or access to the Metro Trains Melbourne (MTM) network, regardless of duration. The
works subject for a program review will be established by the Program Manager in
consultation with the Project Manager based on the following.
Key considerations to define if works are deemed as High Risk are, although not limited
to:
o Implementing new technology
o Removing considerable amounts of old infrastructure
o Making changes to existing infrastructure where the condition of the asset is not
well known prior to the works
o Modifications to existing signalling/rail systems infrastructure where there is the
potential for failure if disturbed
o Modifications to relay interlocking’s where there may be considerable passage of
time between testing and commissioning
o Changes to infrastructure where there is potential for as built documentation to be
incorrect
o Works scheduled for handback on the day of Major events
The occupation readiness Peer Review should address at a minimum:

• Detailed scope of works including all methodologies (including interfaces with other
works, occupations or PTF’s)
• Consultation with relevant SME’s in formulating / assessing suitability of schedule
& resource level: durations / logic / quantities etc.
• A group determination on the amount of contingency required for the works based
on type of works, risk level, etc.
• Summation of key risks and mitigation strategies – ‘What-If’ scenario planning
• Detail the relevant ‘Go / No-Go Decision Points’ in the schedule, authority to make
decisions and specific float on these activities. Key activities or milestones in the
schedule which, once commenced, may not be able to be re-instated or must occur
at specific times in the schedule
• How the works are to be monitored & communicated / reported
• Escalation & degraded handback protocols, noting the point(s) in the schedule
when contingency is ‘work group owned’ (float) versus ‘business owned’ (point of
escalation, contingencies required to be enacted)
Appendix B
Self-assessment Risk Rating – Example
Example: Caulfield to Dandenong Project - Area 3 Commissioning

Scope includes, finalise abutments A, B, C, D & F, new track alignment in tie in points, run overhead line on viaduct and tie in
points including side feeders, signalling and commissioning and training control in Dandenong signalling control centre, Noble
Park Substation connected to overhead wires and new Noble Park station.
Frequency Table
Label Probability (%) Description
Frequency F1 <3 Has occurred somewhere in rail industry in the past. (<1 in 20 yrs)
Frequency F2 3 – 10 Occurs from time to time in rail industry. (1 in 20 yrs)
Frequency F3 10 – 50 Could occur once in next 5 years. (1 in 5 yrs)
Frequency F4 50 – 90 Could occur ≥ 2 times in next 5 years. Once every year to two
years
Frequency F5 90 - 100 Could occur > 10 times in next 5 years. Daily to monthly (>2 per
year)
NOTE: Probability estimations are to be based on historic incident data.
How frequent have scope of works

of this manner introduced a delay to
planned handback of the operational
railway?
Result - F4
Severity Table What is the safety risk to MTM if

the works are not completed as
Severity Severity Severity Severity Severity Severity
planned?
Risk S0 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
Content
What is the financial risk to MTM if
Safety Potential first aid injury 1 to 19 minor injuries 20 to 199 minor injuries or ≥200 minor injuries. 21 to 39 serious injuries. 40 or more serious
the works are not completed as
Medical treatment not 1 to 9 serious injuries 10 to 19 serious injuries. 2 to 3 fatalities. injuries.
requiring hospitalisation. (injuries requiring 1 fatality. 4 or more fatalities. planned?
hospitalisation overnight S2 – Additional Shutdowns required
or time away from work >
5 days).
Financial < $100K income/expense $100k ≤ income/expense $500k ≤ income/expense $2m ≤ income/expense < $10m ≤ income/expense Income/expense ≥ $50m
What is the reputational damage
< $500k < $2m $10m < $50m
Reputational / Not applicable Limited adverse local Negative state media Regulator prosecution. Negative national media Sustained negative (inter) MTM could incur if the works are not
media. coverage. Call-in event (clause 19). coverage. national media coverage.
completed as planned?
Political Management appearance Breach (clause 20) and/or Organised customer or
at Fairwork Australia. Cure Plan (clause 20.2). Non-Government S2 – Negative State media coverage
Organisation (NGO)
action.
Step-in event (clause 21) What legal action could MTM face if
or Termination event works are not completed as planned?
(clause 22).
S0 – Not applicable
Legal Not applicable Minor legal issues, non Minor legal issues, non Serious breach of Significant prosecution Potential prison terms for
compliance and breaches compliance and breaches regulation with and fines (company & executives and/or high
of regulation. of regulation with prosecution/fines, executives); serious fines for the business,
investigation, minor moderate litigation litigation including class multiple litigation (class What is the risk to MTM if the
litigation e.g. personal (severe personal injury). actions, major breach of action).
design is not met in time to
injury or Fairwork matters. regulation.
Engineering / Not applicable Minimal or no impact or Minor reduction in Moderate reduction in Significant degradation in Performance or technical complete the works as planned?
consequences, performance or technical performance or technical performance/technical goals will not be S3 – Critical Design within Design
Technical unimportant. Can be compliance. Only minor compliance. Some key compliance. Key but non- achieved. Critical project
Tracker will require extra support
managed/negotiated. requirements not met. requirements not met. critical requirements not requirements will not be
Waivers will likely be Some waivers may be met. Waivers unlikely to met. to be met in time
granted to resolve all. granted. May require re- be granted in all cases.
scoping.
Environmental Not applicable Short term effects within Medium term effects in an Long term environmental Permanent environmental What is the risk to MTM if the
area of limited area of some impairment in an area of impairment in an area of environment or heritage listed
/ Heritage environmental/heritage environmental/heritage high high
vegetation or buildings works are
significance. significance as identified environmental/heritage environmental/heritage
by external government significance as identified significance as identified not completed to plan?
authorities by external government by external government S0 – Not applicable
authorities. authorities.
Industrial Not applicable Short term industrial System-wide short term Protracted industrial Protracted industrial Protracted industrial
action. stoppages. action. Alternative action. Limited action. System no longer
What is the risk to MTM if to the
Relations Management appearance passenger services passenger services able to operate.
at Fairwork Australia. available. available. industrial relations if these works are
not completed to plan?
S0 – Not applicable
Using the score given from the Frequency Table (in this example F4) and the highest score given from the Severity Table (in this example S3)
identify the score and risk rating using the Composite Score Table.
Composite Score Table

Severity Severity Severity Severity Severity Severity Severity Severity Severity Severity Severity Severity
S0 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S0 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
Frequency F5 4 5 10 15 20 25 Frequency F5 Low Med High High High High
Frequency F4 3 4 8 12 16 20 Frequency F4 Low Low Med High High High
Frequency F3 2 3 6 9 12 15 Frequency F3 Low Low Med Med High High
Frequency F2 1 2 4 6 8 10 Frequency F2 Low Low Low Med Med High
Frequency F1 1 1 2 3 4 5 Frequency F1 Low Low Low Low Low Med
Appendix C
Works Readiness Checklist
Note: Works Readiness checklist may change over time. Refer to current document on MTM
Depot.

L1-NPD-PRO-002 v8 - Works Readiness Procedure

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

L1-NPD-PRO-002 v8 - Works Readiness Procedure

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

L1-NPD-PRO-002 v8 - Works Readiness Procedure

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WORKS READINESS PROCEDURE

L1-NPD-PRO-002 Version 8 Effective from: 18th July 2018

Name Position Signature

Document Works Readiness

Approving Chief Executive

Approval Date Version Description

12/12/2011 2 Amended to include SQE comments

Amended to reflect trialled rationalisation of WRCs and changes to

03/10/2013 5 Clarification of Business Rules & (T-x) definitions

26/09/2014 6 Removal of WIC references, updated business rules

15/06/2016 7 Review of text and inclusion of risk level definitions.

Update definitions of High, Medium and Low Risk.

L1-NPD-PRO-002 Version 8 Effective from: 18th July 2018

3. Abbreviations and Acronyms ......................................................................5

6.1 WRC Checklist ........................................................................................... 7

6.2 Escalation .................................................................................................. 9

7. Works Readiness Business Rules ..............................................................9

7.1 Business Rule #1: Date and limits of Occupations to be endorsed by T- 8

8. Works Readiness Risk Rating ................................................................... 11

10. Appendices ................................................................................................. 13

L1-NPD-PRO-002 Version 8 Effective from: 18th July 2018

L1-NPD-PRO-002 Version 8 Effective from: 18th July 2018

L1-NPD-PRO-002 Version 8 Effective from: 18th July 2018

Note: Infrastructure Early Week Night Occupations (EWNOs) readiness is assessed

3. Abbreviations and Acronyms

L1-NPD-PRO-002 Version 8 Effective from: 18th July 2018

L1-NPD-PRO-002 Version 8 Effective from: 18th July 2018

High Risk / Long Term Occupations Committee

WORKS READINESS VISUALISATION

Occupations Works Critical

6.1 WRC Checklist

L1-NPD-PRO-002 Version 8 Effective from: 18th July 2018

L1-NPD-PRO-002 Version 8 Effective from: 18th July 2018

7. Works Readiness Business Rules

L1-NPD-PRO-002 Version 8 Effective from: 18th July 2018

L1-NPD-PRO-002 Version 8 Effective from: 18th July 2018

8. Works Readiness Risk Rating

Responsible Work Group

Accountable Program Manager

Consulted Works Readiness Committee

Infrastructure Resource Committee

Informed Works Readiness Visualisation

High Risk / Long Term Occupations Committee

L1-NPD-PRO-002 Version 8 Effective from: 18th July 2018

L1-NPD-PRO-002 Version 8 Effective from: 18th July 2018

Peer Review Practice

L1-NPD-PRO-002 Version 8 Effective from: 18th July 2018

The occupation readiness Peer Review should address at a minimum:

L1-NPD-PRO-002 Version 8 Effective from: 18th July 2018

Example: Caulfield to Dandenong Project - Area 3 Commissioning

Frequency F2 3 – 10 Occurs from time to time in rail industry. (1 in 20 yrs)

Frequency F3 10 – 50 Could occur once in next 5 years. (1 in 5 yrs)

How frequent have scope of works

L1-NPD-PRO-002 Version 8 Effective from: 18th July 2018

Severity Table What is the safety risk to MTM if

L1-NPD-PRO-002 Version 8 Effective from: 18th July 2018

Composite Score Table

L1-NPD-PRO-002 Version 8 Effective from: 18th July 2018