Name: Unlocking innovation and managing risks in rail
Uploaded: 2023-11-03T02:53:08.764Z
Duration: 501.87
Description: Zoltan David, Managing Director of Mage Consulting discusses the challenges of implementing innovation safely in the rail industry and maintaining a skilled rail workforce.

Zoltan David Export.mp4

Zoltan David.vtt

Subtitles

{{00:00:12}}
Like these gadgets on improving
safety come up all the time, but

{{00:00:16}}
at the end of the day railways are
already inherently extremely safe.

{{00:00:20}}
So if you compare the fatalities
on the road that we have in

{{00:00:25}}
Australia, there's about a thousand
people that die every year.

{{00:00:29}}
And society is perfectly fine with that.

{{00:00:31}}
We accept that as a risk.

{{00:00:32}}
Whereas on the railways, we
practically never kill anyone.

{{00:00:35}}
It's, you know, we've had a couple
of fatalities in the last 10 years

{{00:00:39}}
and while they're not acceptable
and they shouldn't be tolerated,

{{00:00:43}}
those accidents make the media.

{{00:00:46}}
Whereas, you know on probably the same
day, about 15 people died on the roads.

{{00:00:51}}
So I'm a bit skeptical about, how far
you can improve safety on the railways.

{{00:00:56}}
Like we should always strive for better,
but you have to appreciate that we

{{00:00:59}}
were already in a very good position.

{{00:01:01}}
What I see on the other hand
with all of the new technologies

{{00:01:05}}
and innovation is a bunch of new
risks that we didn't have before.

{{00:01:09}}
And I think that's kind of the question
that keeps me busy is, how do we

{{00:01:15}}
innovate and how do we introduce new
technologies, new ways of working

{{00:01:20}}
while making things safe and safer
than it is actually currently.

{{00:01:24}}
And it's not a trivial question.

{{00:01:26}}
A lot of the decarbonization
technologies have inherent

{{00:01:30}}
problems when it comes to safety.

{{00:01:34}}
Those can be managed, but I
mean we're we're working in

{{00:01:36}}
a very risk averse industry.

{{00:01:39}}
And that just means that when you're
introducing new risks, it's very

{{00:01:45}}
difficult to get them approved
or even entertained by operators.

{{00:01:49}}
Not necessarily the regulator.

{{00:01:51}}
The regulator understands that you have
to maintain a practicable level of safety.

{{00:01:56}}
But there's a lot of misconceptions and
a lot of this is how we always do things,

{{00:02:03}}
kind of attitudes in the rail industry.

{{00:02:06}}
And in all fairness, if we want to
remain relevant and competitive in the

{{00:02:11}}
future, then a lot of those attitudes
and approaches need to change.

{{00:02:16}}
While still retaining the good things
and the end of focus on safety,

{{00:02:22}}
but more on a pragmatic risk based
safety rather than a, this is how

{{00:02:27}}
we always do things kind of safety.

{{00:02:29}}
And in all fairness, I must say this
is how we always do things, isn't safe.

{{00:02:35}}
Like it's perfectly plausible that your
hazards have changed over the years.

{{00:02:41}}
New things have emerged.

{{00:02:42}}
They have morphed and
changed into, in new ways.

{{00:02:48}}
And your processes that may have
been perfectly fine 30 years ago,

{{00:02:54}}
quite plausibly aren't today.

{{00:03:01}}
The bigger problem in railway
is that you're not in charge.

{{00:03:05}}
I mean, a few operators are, so when
you look at the operators in the

{{00:03:08}}
Pilbara, they have their own network.

{{00:03:10}}
It's pretty self contained, it's
their drivers, it's their iron

{{00:03:14}}
ore, whatever, they're in charge.

{{00:03:15}}
But when it comes to the public and public
transportation, you're not in charge.

{{00:03:21}}
You're absolutely not in
charge of what's happening.

{{00:03:23}}
You're interfacing with the public.

{{00:03:25}}
They do various weird things.

{{00:03:27}}
It's unfortunately really, you can
only strive for zero fatalities or an

{{00:03:33}}
absolute level of risk when you're in
charge and we're not as an industry.

{{00:03:43}}
So generally as government, various
public bodies to normally look at skills

{{00:03:48}}
shortages in the industry and their
immediate response normally is that,

{{00:03:56}}
oh well you know, we need new courses
or we need to educate people somehow.

{{00:04:01}}
And in all fairness, that's
probably a bit besides the point.

{{00:04:05}}
Like we already have a lot of engineers.

{{00:04:08}}
We have mechanical engineers,
electrical engineers.

{{00:04:10}}
A lot of engineers out there who
are not currently in the engineering

{{00:04:15}}
profession, but they should be.

{{00:04:18}}
If we have innovative projects,
then obviously we just upscale

{{00:04:23}}
ourselves naturally on the job.

{{00:04:26}}
There's nothing particularly scary
or difficult about all of the new

{{00:04:32}}
technologies that are coming our way.

{{00:04:34}}
We just need to, do what we always do.

{{00:04:36}}
We just assess the risks.

{{00:04:38}}
We figure out how these things
work and we manage them.

{{00:04:43}}
It doesn't require us to have new
degrees or courses or whatever.

{{00:04:47}}
We just got to have innovative
projects and that's probably, one

{{00:04:50}}
of the areas where we're really,
really lagging behind as an industry.

{{00:04:55}}
Because the thing is that, people say that
you know, we're a risk averse industry and

{{00:05:02}}
on one hand we are, but at the same time,
it doesn't justify living in the past.

{{00:05:10}}
And unfortunately, when our procurements
are written with the mindset that

{{00:05:16}}
anything that we procure has to have
a track record of 20 years, then we

{{00:05:21}}
are just naturally not innovative.

{{00:05:24}}
And unless we really start shifting that
attitude, we wouldn't be able to upskill

{{00:05:32}}
people because, well yes technically you
can teach people things at university,

{{00:05:36}}
but if they never apply it in real
life then that is not useful knowledge.

{{00:05:42}}
And at the same time, it's not knowledge
that's actually going to be retained.

{{00:05:46}}
Oh look I'm generally a big, big
fan of quantitative tools when

{{00:05:55}}
it comes to risk management.

{{00:05:57}}
So for layman's, generally tend to
evaluate risks in one of two ways:

{{00:06:05}}
a bit of a simplification but you
either look at it qualitatively

{{00:06:08}}
or you look at quantitatively.

{{00:06:09}}
So qualitatively it means that, you
know let's say we have a hazard log.

{{00:06:14}}
We have like a representative group of
people that thinks about the hazard.

{{00:06:17}}
We think about the controls that we can
put in place and we can kind of have a

{{00:06:21}}
brainstorm about what that risk is going
to be and, you know whether we've managed

{{00:06:26}}
it well and that works well for probably
things that we do understand quite well.

{{00:06:31}}
Where it doesn't really work is with new
problems, niche problems, and problems

{{00:06:38}}
where you have to you know, make judgments
on whether you should implement something

{{00:06:44}}
that is rather costly or are other
better ways of managing that hazard.

{{00:06:48}}
So that's when quantitative
risk assessments come into play.

{{00:06:54}}
There's a few ways of ways of doing that.

{{00:06:57}}
I'm particularly a big fan
of cost benefit assessments.

{{00:07:01}}
I find them quite useful and in all
fairness, there's been a lot of cases

{{00:07:06}}
when I've been doing, you know, cost
benefit assessments on safety risks and

{{00:07:10}}
I found while doing the exercise that
there's an easier way of doing this.

{{00:07:15}}
But kind of going through the motions
of doing a cost benefit assessment,

{{00:07:19}}
it helps you to put into perspective
as to what the actual risk is.

{{00:07:24}}
You know, what kind of benefit can you
achieve by implementing a control and

{{00:07:29}}
what the cost of that control would be?

{{00:07:31}}
It brings quite a lot of clarity into
whether what you're doing is worth doing.

{{00:07:36}}
ARRM is a very helpful tool when
it comes to that because basically

{{00:07:39}}
like, a lot of the frequencies of
hazards you can just take out of ARRM.

{{00:07:47}}
So you don't have to evaluate for
yourself and there's always a level

{{00:07:50}}
of subjectivity and very often
you don't have the right data

{{00:07:53}}
when you just go online or you go into
the regulators website and you try to

{{00:07:58}}
figure out like, okay so what's the risk
of a rail worker fatality in Australia?

{{00:08:05}}
You can just take that out of
ARRM for your various operators.

{{00:08:09}}
And obviously that gives you quite
a lot of clarity when you're trying

{{00:08:13}}
to make risk based decisions.

Like these gadgets on improving
safety come up all the time, but

at the end of the day railways are
already inherently extremely safe.

So if you compare the fatalities
on the road that we have in

Australia, there's about a thousand
people that die every year.

Whereas on the railways, we
practically never kill anyone.

It's, you know, we've had a couple
of fatalities in the last 10 years

and while they're not acceptable
and they shouldn't be tolerated,

Whereas, you know on probably the same
day, about 15 people died on the roads.

So I'm a bit skeptical about, how far
you can improve safety on the railways.

Like we should always strive for better,
but you have to appreciate that we

What I see on the other hand
with all of the new technologies

and innovation is a bunch of new
risks that we didn't have before.

And I think that's kind of the question
that keeps me busy is, how do we

innovate and how do we introduce new
technologies, new ways of working

while making things safe and safer
than it is actually currently.

A lot of the decarbonization
technologies have inherent

Those can be managed, but I
mean we're we're working in

And that just means that when you're
introducing new risks, it's very

difficult to get them approved
or even entertained by operators.

The regulator understands that you have
to maintain a practicable level of safety.

But there's a lot of misconceptions and
a lot of this is how we always do things,

And in all fairness, if we want to
remain relevant and competitive in the

future, then a lot of those attitudes
and approaches need to change.

While still retaining the good things
and the end of focus on safety,

but more on a pragmatic risk based
safety rather than a, this is how

And in all fairness, I must say this
is how we always do things, isn't safe.

Like it's perfectly plausible that your
hazards have changed over the years.

They have morphed and
changed into, in new ways.

And your processes that may have
been perfectly fine 30 years ago,

The bigger problem in railway
is that you're not in charge.

I mean, a few operators are, so when
you look at the operators in the

It's pretty self contained, it's
their drivers, it's their iron

But when it comes to the public and public
transportation, you're not in charge.

You're absolutely not in
charge of what's happening.

It's unfortunately really, you can
only strive for zero fatalities or an

absolute level of risk when you're in
charge and we're not as an industry.

So generally as government, various
public bodies to normally look at skills

shortages in the industry and their
immediate response normally is that,

oh well you know, we need new courses
or we need to educate people somehow.

And in all fairness, that's
probably a bit besides the point.

We have mechanical engineers,
electrical engineers.

A lot of engineers out there who
are not currently in the engineering

If we have innovative projects,
then obviously we just upscale

There's nothing particularly scary
or difficult about all of the new

We figure out how these things
work and we manage them.

It doesn't require us to have new
degrees or courses or whatever.

We just got to have innovative
projects and that's probably, one

of the areas where we're really,
really lagging behind as an industry.

Because the thing is that, people say that
you know, we're a risk averse industry and

on one hand we are, but at the same time,
it doesn't justify living in the past.

And unfortunately, when our procurements
are written with the mindset that

anything that we procure has to have
a track record of 20 years, then we

And unless we really start shifting that
attitude, we wouldn't be able to upskill

people because, well yes technically you
can teach people things at university,

but if they never apply it in real
life then that is not useful knowledge.

And at the same time, it's not knowledge
that's actually going to be retained.

Oh look I'm generally a big, big
fan of quantitative tools when

So for layman's, generally tend to
evaluate risks in one of two ways:

a bit of a simplification but you
either look at it qualitatively

So qualitatively it means that, you
know let's say we have a hazard log.

We have like a representative group of
people that thinks about the hazard.

We think about the controls that we can
put in place and we can kind of have a

brainstorm about what that risk is going
to be and, you know whether we've managed

it well and that works well for probably
things that we do understand quite well.

Where it doesn't really work is with new
problems, niche problems, and problems

where you have to you know, make judgments
on whether you should implement something

that is rather costly or are other
better ways of managing that hazard.

So that's when quantitative
risk assessments come into play.

There's a few ways of ways of doing that.

I'm particularly a big fan
of cost benefit assessments.

I find them quite useful and in all
fairness, there's been a lot of cases

when I've been doing, you know, cost
benefit assessments on safety risks and

I found while doing the exercise that
there's an easier way of doing this.

But kind of going through the motions
of doing a cost benefit assessment,

it helps you to put into perspective
as to what the actual risk is.

Rail Safety

Expert Insight

Zoltan David, Managing Director of Mage Consulting discusses the challenges of implementing innovation safely in the rail industry and maintaining a skilled rail workforce.