@article{GENERAL,
      recid = {7730},
      author = {Labonté Jones, A and Lerigo-Smith, N},
      title = {Shipping Safety into the Naval Industry},
      journal = {Conference Proceedings of iSCSS},
      address = {2018-10-03},
      number = {GENERAL},
      abstract = {Safety engineering and legislation (IEC-61508, 61511 etc.)  has been entrenched in many industries (O&G, process)  for years. Although regulation has been progressed by  Lloyd’s Register, the Marine industry has been  inherently slower to accept and adopt functional safety  practices employing quantitative analysis. As in other  industries, a review of legislation would usually be kick  started by a large-scale accident.  

With an aim to  reducing manning costs, marine vessels are now developed  with increasing amounts of automation in their control  systems. Incidents resulting from failures of these systems  are becoming more frequent due to either poor safety  considerations when designing the systems, or operators not  understanding interactions with the automated systems.  Preferably, before incidents increase in frequency or  severity, engineered safety using inherent safety controls  will become a more important factor in the Marine sector.   

Opposition to functional safety has primarily been  due to cost and scheduling purposes. Businesses have to be  profitable to survive, and Safety Engineering can be viewed  as introducing programme delays and unnecessary costs. In  reality, other safety related programmes have demonstrated  the benefits of following safety related development  programme.  

As in most instances of programme delay,  poor initial requirements capture causes late changes to be  incorporated to products, resulting in escalating delays  and costs.  

If safety is engaged early in the  product lifecycle, then programme delays and unnecessary  safety risk can be reduced and managed effectively  throughout the lifetime of the ship. In all projects, there  can be conflicts between safety and security design, but  early integration of safety will allow you to balance safe,  secure and reliable operation, ultimately improving the  quality of your end product.  

Major savings can be  made by reducing maintenance on systems that have been  proven to have lower integrity due to quantitative analysis  and proof testing – provided it has been demonstrated  to be As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP). If your  company does not embrace safety integrity within its  culture, you can run the risk of losing credibility, a  competitive edge within the marketplace and incur expensive  damage to reputation.

In conclusion, the manufacturer and  end user will incur far higher costs of redesign if changes  are needed for safety when the product has reached  post-development. If left unchanged, consider the  following: If a designed system fails and causes an  incident, will the company reputation be tarnished and  product orders halt? Remember: If somebody is injured or  dies in an accident, any company individual can be found  liable and prosecuted. },
      url = {http://library.imarest.org/record/7730},
}