Purpose

The purpose of this assignment is to gain experience and to demonstrate your ability to evaluate the application of design controls (based upon controls described in the lectures and of the nature and apparent adequacy of the organisational, social or legislative arrangements that give rise to the design controls). This assessment requires you to be inquisitive and investigative. You will also need to demonstrate some lateral thinking. The case studies are progressively weighted as follows:

1. Case study 1: 10% (1,000 words)
2. Case study 2: 15% (1,500 words)
3. Case study 3: 25% (2,500 words)

Due Dates

• Case study 1. Friday of week 3: 11:59pm AEST
• Case study 2. Friday of week 6: 11:59pm AEST
• Case study 3. Friday of week 9: 11:59pm AEST

Task Description

You are required to cover three case studies. Two cases must be selected from the list provided in Moodle. The third case can be drawn from this list, or free choice. If you bring your own case study to this exercise, please pass it by the lecturer to ensure suitability. For the first two case studies only, you will be placed in groups where you are free to discuss the cases, share research and ideas. However, all three case studies are individual submissions and should reflect individual work.

For each case study you will be researching and reflecting at great depth. You are required to:

1. Document the status of the design standards implementation:

• what design standards exist
• what they are (document name/s)
• what organisation develops them

2. Reflect upon the findings and, with further research, document:

• whether development is informed by both reactive and proactive methods (if you can discover the answer)
• the means used in society to promulgate and encourage or enforce their use
• effectiveness of the controls:
  • adequacy of the scope
  • controls included
  • strengths and weaknesses 
  • review following technology change
  • any other observations

Out of a possible 100 marks, the case studies are progressively weighted as follows:

1. Case study 1: 10% (20 marks)
2. Case study 2: 15% (30 marks)
3. Case study 3: 25% (50 marks)

Grades will be assessed on:

• Depth of research undertaken: what did you do? (10%)
• Explanation of the process of development of standards, promulgation and enforcement: what did you find out? (20%)
• Observations, analysis and commentary: what does this mean? (70%)

Purpose

The purpose of this assignment is to give you experience in appraising design issues at a larger scale. From this experience you will be able to demonstrate how to appraise a new and emerging design issue that presents a threat to society.

Task Description

As a team you will conduct an investigation into a societal problem. You will appraise an existing design of this emerging complex sociotechnical system using a safety case methodology. The design assessment must include the following evidence:

• consideration of the whole life cycle of the object whose design is being evaluated,
• a suitable structured analytical approach to the consideration of safety design requirements,
• commentary on the effectiveness of the design strategies adopted, and
• appropriate observations about social, organisational or cultural assumptions for which you believe the design effectiveness depends.

Teams. You will be allocated to a team of four students in Week 4.

Assignment requirements

1. Select a topic from the list provided on Moodle. Topic selection is on a first in, first choice basis.
2. Hold team meetings to develop a shared understanding across the team of the topic and issues posed.
3. Develop a Safety Case Formal Report for the proposed new technology, prepared in accordance with Chapter 9 of the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 (Qld).
4. Support the argument for the safety case with evidence-based practice (CQUniversity Harvard Referencing Style)
5. Address the following PtD criteria within your Safety Case:

• PtD design principles
• Consideration of any potential trade-offs to minimise sub-optimisation of subsystems
• Risk assessments for key sub-systems

Out of a possible 100 marks, the team safety case report is assessed on the depth to which you have addressed the following:

1. Team contract, and safety case developed in accordance with Chapter 9 of the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 (Qld) (WHS Reg) (10 marks)

2. Makes appropriate observations about the social, organisational, or cultural assumptions on which you believe the safety case depends (10 marks)

3. The Safety Case contains (50 marks)

• the identification conducted under Section 554 (WHS Reg), including a list of all major incidents identified (or postulated)
• the safety assessment conducted under section 555
• the major hazard facility's emergency plan
• the major hazard facility’s safety management system
• description of any arrangements made in relation to the security of the major hazard facility
• consideration of the whole life cycle of the Sociotechnical system

The Safety Case Demonstrates (20 marks):

• that the major hazard facility's safety management system will, once implemented, control risks arising from major incidents and major incident hazards; and
• the adequacy of the measures to be implemented by the operator to control risks associated with the occurrence and potential occurrence of major incidents.
• logic, accurate use of technical terms, the quality of analytical thought and comment.
• shows evidence of the use of a suitable structured analytical approach to the consideration of safety design requirements and comments on the design strategy

Marks will also be allocated to the following (10 marks):

• formatted in a formal report style with a cover sheet, executive summary, contents list, numbered paragraph headings, page numbering etc as described in Moodle
• results from the Self and Peer Assessment which will be emailed to you in Week 7.

Purpose

We are living in an exciting time of social and technological change. As future safety managers, you will help to usher in an as yet unknown and exciting new future. We have the opportunity and responsibility to contribute to the designs of this new future and prevent the inadvertent introduction of problems and sociotechnical design failures.

The purpose of this journal is to provide you with an opportunity to assimilate and reflect on the subject matter of this unit, your experiences in contributing to the team and other learnings about how PtD can be applied. It is an opportunity for you to personally consider the meaning and practice of each of the learning outcomes that you will find in the Unit Outline.

Task Description

You will maintain a personal journal during the term. This is not an essay, it is a personal learning journal of your own reflections and learnings. Make journal notes in support of your work and reflections (thoughts and feelings) as they arise. The journal may be written in the first person. Further guidance on the format will be provided through Moodle. As a guide you should aim to submit one or two pages per learning week.

1. Reflect on your understanding of the subject content and readings and make at least one substantive entry each week.
2. Reflect on the history of the emphasis on PtD, the support for it in legislation, Standards, Codes of Practice and consideration of the range of design areas seen as requiring attention.
3. Reflect on the weekly tasks that are posed in the lectures and on Moodle and how they impacted on your awareness of PtD issues.
4. Investigate and document your observations of how the subject material applies in a complex sociotechnical setting. This will require you to understand the subject matter content and then seek out and discuss a situation or workplace scenario, not necessarily where you are employed (e.g. volunteer organisation, the transport network in your town, the emergency department admissions system at your local hospital and so on), where that PtD issue can be seen.
5. Reflect upon and document your experiences of the term including:
   • your work on the case studies
   • your participation in team work on a safety case - the work you contributed to the effort of the team and any difficulties in documenting the safety case.
   • your PtD position in this new technological age (such as space, connected vehicles, unmanned vehicles, drones, apps...) as changemakers and facilitators.
   • your broader learnings in sociotechnical systems design and procedural design

You are encouraged to investigate and reference a range of external sources as you explore and reflect on the topics. Ensure that these are referenced in your journal using CQUni Harvard Referencing Style as located in your Unit Profile.

The depth and breadth of your response will be considered in the evaluation of your understanding of this unit and the broader topic of Prevention Through Design. You will be assessed on the depth of your reflection and its contribution to your learning as follows:

• the subject content and readings to understand the topic and make at least one substantive entry each week. (40 marks across 10 weeks)
• your observations of how the subject material applies in a complex sociotechnical setting. This will require you to understand the subject matter content each week and then seek out and discuss a situation or workplace scenario (not necessarily where you are employed e.g. volunteer organisation, the transport network in your town, the emergency department admissions system at your local hospital and so on) where that PtD issue can be seen. (40 marks across 10 weeks)
• your experiences of the term including (20 marks):

• your participation in group work on a safety case - the work you contributed to the effort of the group and any difficulties in documenting the safety case.
• your own work on the three case studies.
• your PtD position in this new technological age (space, connected vehicles, unmanned vehicles, drones, apps) as changemakers and facilitators.
• your broader learnings in sociotechnical systems design and procedural design

In assessing the work, value will be placed on the quality and clarity of the written word, on logic, on the accurate use of technical terms and on the quality of analytical thought and comment.