ENGINEERING CHANGE PROCEDURE - Metro Trains ... CHANGE PROCEDURE L1-CHE-PRO-031 Version: 1 Effective from: 12th September 2016 Approving Manager: Chief Engineer Approval Date: 12/09/2016

ENGINEERING CHANGE PROCEDURE

L1-CHE-PRO-031 Version: 1 Effective from: 12th September 2016

Approving Manager: Chief Engineer Approval Date: 12/09/2016 Next Review Date: 12/09/2019 PRINTOUT MAY NOT BE UP-TO-DATE; REFER TO METRO INTRANET FOR THE LATEST VERSION Page 1 of 24

Approval

Amendment Record

Approval Date Version Description 12/09/2016 1 Supersedes L1-ASY-PRO-001




Table of Contents

1. Purpose ............................................................................................................ 3

2. Scope ............................................................................................................... 3

3. References and Associated Documents ....................................................... 4

4. Abbreviations and Acronyms ........................................................................ 4

5. Definitions and Responsibilities .................................................................... 5

6. Procedure ........................................................................................................ 7

6.1. Statement of Principles ................................................................................... 9

6.2. Class 1 Engineering Changes ...................................................................... 10

6.3. Class 2 Engineering Changes ...................................................................... 11

6.4. Compiling an Engineering Change ............................................................... 13

6.5. Engineering Change Approval ...................................................................... 21

6.6. Urgent Engineering Change Authorisation .................................................... 21

6.7. Responsibilities ............................................................................................. 21

7. Records .......................................................................................................... 23

8. Engineering Change Guidance Notes ......................................................... 23

8.1. Approved Form 1 .......................................................................................... 23

8.2. Register EC .................................................................................................. 23

8.3. Determine Scope and Depth of Risk Assessment: Determine Stakeholders . 23

8.4. Review EC: ................................................................................................... 24

8.5. Obtain Approval and Authorisation. .............................................................. 24

8.6. Implement Change as per EC Document ...................................................... 24

Table of Figures

Figure 1 - Process Flow chart .................................................................................................. 8

Figure 2 - Class 1 EC flowchart ............................................................................................. 10

Figure 3 - Class 2 EC flowchart ............................................................................................. 12

Figure 4 - EC Approval Process ............................................................................................ 21




1. Purpose The Metro Trains Melbourne (MTM) Engineering Change (EC) process is the primary means of implementing engineering configuration control (engineering review and approval) for all MTM Rolling Stock and Infrastructure assets.

The process relates to identifying changes to one or more of the following aspects:

• Configuration (‘form, fit or function’)

• Maintenance (task/frequency)

It also extends to operational assets that have their interfaces, or relationships to other operational assets requiring change.

The process defines how MTM initiates, develops and approves engineering changes. The EC process evaluates the viability of the change from a technical perspective by all the necessary technical stakeholders with particular regard to safety.

In particular, the application of this procedure ensures that all MTM Rolling Stock and Infrastructure configuration, maintenance and technical standard changes are:

• Endorsed by the relevant Head(s) of Engineering (HoE);

• Endorsed by other relevant Stakeholders as identified (e.g. Fleet Managers, Infrastructure Delivery Managers, Engineering Managers (Major Projects only);

• Authorised by the Chief Engineer (for Class 1 EC) or appropriate HoE (for Class 2 EC) before implementation; and

• Risks generated by the change adequately treated (current and proposed).

Note 1: It is imperative to note that the EC process is a SEPARATE but aligned PROCESS to Management of Change (MoC). The MoC process is governed by Safety, Environment and Risk (SER). Note 2: Changes to maintenance tasks that only modify a current task but do not change the output of that task or impact on the task frequency may not require an EC. Any change that may fit this category shall be agreed by the ERM and the relevant HoE and endorsed by the Engineering Review Board (ERB).

2. Scope This procedure applies to all configuration and maintenance changes made to MTM Rolling Stock and Infrastructure operational assets (and any MTM Rolling Stock and Infrastructure maintenance support assets specified by the Engineering Change Review Manager (ERM)).

Note 3: As efficiency to the EC process, technical standard changes no longer require an EC. Technical standards are sufficiently reviewed approved prior to release, additionally technical standards will require approval through the standards committee.




This procedure is mandatory for any changes that are to be applied by any internal or external parties to MTM. For clarity, this includes the introduction of any new MTM Rolling Stock and Infrastructure, and the handing over of any Works from the Projects Division to MTM.

Note 4: Any new infrastructure equipment being added to MTMs network as part of an EC shall be type approved in accordance with MTMs ‘Type Approval Procedure’ (L1-CHE-PRO-004). It is not the scope of this document to outline in detail how the EC form is to be completed. For direction in completing the EC form refer to ‘Engineering Change Form User Guide’ (L1-CHE-GDL-031)

3. References and Associated Documents L1-CHE-GDL-031 Engineering Change Form User Guide L1-CHE-PRO-004 Type Approval Procedure L1-PRJ-PRO-002 Gate Procedure for Projects L1-SQE-PRO-001 Management of Change Process L0-SQE-PRO-031 Enterprise Risk Management Procedure L4-CHE-GDL-001 Engineering (Type Approval – Engineering Change – Waiver)

Process Map L4-SQE-FOR-064 Risk Assessment template

4. Abbreviations and Acronyms AC Asset Custodian AEPL Approved Engineering Product List CC Change Coordinator CE Chief Engineer DMS Drawing Management System EC Engineering Change ECRO Engineering Change Register Officer EGI Equipment Group Identifier ERB Engineering Review Board ERM EC Review Manager HoE Head of Engineering IFC Issued For Construction ISR Interim Staging Request MoC Management of Change MTM Metro Trains Melbourne Pty. Ltd. PTV Public Transport Victoria PWM Passenger Weighted Minutes RAMS Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and Safety




TA Type Approval TMP Technical Maintenance Plan

5. Definitions and Responsibilities Approved Engineering Product List

The Approved Engineering Product List (AEPL) that lists all equipment, components, materials and consumables that have been approved for use in MTM Infrastructure. The AEPL does not include generally available items that pose a low risk to MTM Goals and Objectives, and do not require systematic control.

Asset Custodian (AC)

The position holder responsible for the overall asset performance of MTM Rolling Stock and Infrastructure operational assets and owner of all the risks associated with these assets. The Asset Custodian is the General Manager Infrastructure (for Infrastructure) or the General Manager Rolling Stock (for Rolling Stock only), or their delegated representative.

Change Coordinator (CC)

The position holder responsible for the compilation of the EC document; obtaining all endorsements, approvals and authorisations; and overseeing the completion of all implementation tasks. The CC should have a sufficient level technical knowledge to develop and complete the EC.

Configuration Change

A change to the form, fit function, geographical location or interface characteristics of an asset or asset system. This also includes the addition or removal of any assets or asset systems.

Drawing Management System (DMS)

PTV administered central repository for all designs, plans and other pertinent information detailing railway infrastructure owned by the State of Victoria.

EC Review Manager (ERM)

The engineering manager responsible for providing guidance on the preparation of the EC Document and ensuring completeness and robustness of the EC Document and where delegated establishment of the EC workflow.

Engineering Change - Class 1

A Class 1 EC is one that impacts cost, schedule and/or technical compliance/performance due to one or more of the following factors:

a. To satisfy approved, new or modified operational, functional, non-functional and/or interface requirements;

b. Changes (including interface characteristics) that affect/alter form, fit or function;

c. As a result of correcting a design deficiency; or d. Maintenance (task/frequency). e.g. TMP.

Engineering Change - Class 2

A Class 2 EC involves a change that does not alter form/fit/function or is assessed as having low enough risk by the relevant Head(s) of Engineering (HoE) and the ERM in not warranting a Class 1 categorisation.




Engineering Change (EC)

The introduction or modification to the configuration or maintenance change applied to any MTM Rolling Stock and Infrastructure operational assets. The definition also extends to any operational assets that have their interfaces, or relationships to other operational assets changed.

Engineering Change (EC) Form

A SharePoint based electronic form that describes the EC and details the change risks and implementation tasks. The EC tool also acts as the repository for the EC form and associated attachments such as drawings, new/amended documents, design reports, test reports, risk assessment, etc. The form also enables recording of electronic signatures in the EC approval process. A SharePoint generated e-mail containing all approval comments is manually attached to the EC as the approval record.

Engineering Change Register Officer (ECRO)

The position holder responsible for registering and maintaining all ECs in the EC register and performing the initial review of the EC prior to submission to the ERB.

Engineering Review Board (ERB)

The entity established in the MTM Engineering group to provide direction in ensuring all the required engineering stake holders are identified for the review of MoC and EC documentation.

Maintenance Change

A change to a maintenance task or frequency impacting the TMP (including service schedule and Maintenance instructions).

Maintenance Support Asset

A physical asset that is utilised in the maintenance of MTM Rolling Stock and Infrastructure operational assets. This includes but not limited to tools, power equipment, lifting equipment, travelling platforms, measuring equipment, road vehicles, hi-rails, work trains, maintenance sidings, maintenance buildings, maintenance software and maintenance hardware.

Management of Change (MoC)

The process by which MTM registers and manages all changes through MTMs ‘Management of Change Process’ (L1-SQE-PRO-001). The MoC Process identifies changes (any modification/alteration/addition/removal of operations, asset infrastructure, rolling stock or process) at a high level that may affect the safety and/or operations of MTM railway operations, ensuring:

• Changes and their associated risks are managed so far as is reasonably practicable;

• Is in compliance with Rail Safety National Law National Regulations 2012 and MTM’s Rail Transport Operator obligations;

• Is in compliance with the Rail Infrastructure Manager and Rolling Stock Operator obligations as set out by the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator.

MoC Form 1 Change Impact Assessment Tool ‘Form 1’ as defined in the MoC Process.

MoC Form 2 Change Impact Assessment Tool ‘Form 2 as defined in the MoC Process.




Operational Asset

A physical asset that is utilised in the delivery of MTM services. This includes but not limited to trains, stations, mainline tracks, stabling sidings, signals, level crossings, sub stations, traction supply overhead, bridges, structures, signal boxes, communication huts, control systems, communication systems, software and the rail reserve.

Risk The risk that fits into the definition as described by the applicable ‘Risk Context’. Refer to the ‘Severity’ tab of the ‘Risk Assessment Template’ (L4-SQE-FOR-064).

Note: The EC is primarily interested in Risk that will be present post the change, e.g. Risks that will only be present during the construction phase of the risk are considered to be out the scope of the EC process and shall be captured by the relevant document e.g. Safe Working Method Statement, and shall be the responsibility of the relevant stake holder.

6. Procedure This EC procedure defines both ‘Class 1’ and ‘Class 2’ ECs. The EC process has been refined to take a more considered approach in developing and approving changes of varying complexity. For changes that are deemed to be at low enough risk and have negligible or no impact to Form/Fit/Function may be classed as a ‘Class 2’ EC, which will follow a more streamlined path of the EC process.

In order for a change to be considered as a ‘Class 2’ change, the Change Coordinator (CC) shall seek acceptance from the ERM and the relevant HoE(s). If accepted the EC will require ratification at the ERB.

Whereby a change is considered by the CC having very low significance, therefore not warranting an EC, the CC shall seek acceptance for such a consideration from the ERM and the relevant HoE(s). If accepted the proposal for no EC will require confirmation by the ERB. An example for such a change not requiring an EC would be when a ‘like for like’ item is being replaced. The new item shall assessed to ensure conformance to the same specification (form, fit and function) as the item it is replacing e.g. replacing a Company ‘A’ 12 watt bayonet Cap compact fluoro light with a Company ‘B’ 12 watt bayonet Cap compact fluoro light.

Figure 1 graphically describes the process flow for both ‘Class 1’ and ‘Class 2’ ECs. The process relating ‘Class 1’ and ‘Class 2’ are defined in greater detail in sections 6.2 and 6.3 respectively.

All ECs are to use the SharePoint based MTM Engineering Change Form; refer to ‘Engineering Change Form User Guide’ (L1-CHE-GDL-031).

Note 5: Any new equipment being added to the MTM rail network as part of an EC shall require type approval prior to installation in accordance with MTMs Type Approval Procedure (L1-CHE-PRO-004).

Note 6: The Interim Staging Request (ISR) process provides staged projects with a mechanism to approve minor works that are not covered within an authorised EC. For more details regarding ISRs refer to Engineering Change (EC) - Interim Staging Request (ISR) – (L4-CHE-FOR-047).




Qualified asset (L1-CHE-PRO-004)

or Asset not requiring

qualification

Register EC

Class 2

Class 1

Develop and complete Class 2 EC

Develop Class 1 EC (risk assessment

required) ##

## If applicable Project ERB process to be followed prior to completion of the Class 1

Engineering Change

EC Endorsement(HoEs)

Approved EC

EC Authorisation(Chief Engineers)

MoC Form 1 Approved

Is change Class 1, Class 2 or no EC?

EwB to decide if change is Class 1, Class 2 or no EC

required?

End

Is a Risk Assessment Required?

Complete Risk

Assessment

Yes

No

No EC required

Notify CC

EC Authorisation (Relevant HoE )

EC Endorsement(HoEs/Delivery Managers/Fleet Managers other stakeholders)

Figure 1 - Process Flow chart




6.1. Statement of Principles (a) MTM supports the introduction of new technology and innovation into MTM

Rolling Stock and Infrastructure operational assets, subject to evidence that they contribute to achieving MTM Goals and Objectives. For example, a reduction in whole of life asset costs, improvements in asset reliability and availability, improvements in maintenance and operational safety and improvements in MTM service delivery standards.

(b) It shall be demonstrated (when required) via an appropriate documented risk assessment (in accordance with procedure L0-SQE-PRO-001 and using template L4-SQE-FOR-064), that the risks generated by the EC to the achievement of MTM Goals and Objectives are acceptable and appropriately controlled. The Risk Analysis shall demonstrate that controls are in place to ensure that ‘So Far As Is Reasonably Practicable’ that all risk have been mitigated.

(c) Prior to the introduction of new technology and innovation, MTM shall require that all existing and future required processes are considered and developed as appropriate (e.g. procedures, RAMS analysis, Type Approval (TA), maintenance instructions, spare parts and training).

(d) Where a component or system is proposed to replace an existing component or system, the existing item may be used as a basis for a comparative risk assessment. In such cases any change in the maintenance and operating environment must also be taken into account.

(e) Human factors that are likely to be affected by the EC shall be considered as part of the risk assessment and addressed within the EC.

(f) The ‘whole of life’ aspects of an EC to be considered where appropriate, with regards to costs associated with initial outlay, maintenance, obsolescence and disposal costs.

(g) Relevant documents and systems, including maintenance instructions, plans, drawings, Ellipse Equipment Register, AEPL, and the Drawing Management System (DMS) are updated as part of the implementation of the EC.

(h) All appropriate technical stakeholders are consulted and the EC shall be endorsed, approved and authorised before implementation.

(i) It is strongly recommended that Rolling Stock and Infrastructure engineering are involved at the earliest stage of proposed configuration or maintenance change. This will benefit the CC by reducing the rework required if a proposed change is not accepted.

(j) Where applicable, the Gate Procedure for Projects (L1-PRJ-PRO-002) shall be adhered to when developing an EC.




6.2. Class 1 Engineering Changes A Class 1 EC is one that impacts cost, schedule and/or technical compliance/performance due to one or more of the following factors:

a) To satisfy approved, new or modified operational, functional, non-functional and/or interface requirements;

b) Changes (including interface characteristics) that affect/alter form, fit or function;

c) As a result of correcting a design deficiency; or

d) Maintenance (task/frequency). e.g. TMP.

Note 7: Class 1 is default EC category. If in doubt which classification an EC is categorised, the CC shall assume a ‘Class 1’ classification or attain guidance from the relevant ERM and HoE(s).

Class 1 EC flow chart 6.2.1.

EC categorised as Class 1

Develop Class 1 EC (risk assessment

required) ##

## If applicable Project ERB process to be followed prior to completion of the Class 1

Engineering Change

EC Endorsement(HoEs)

Approved EC

EC Authorisation(Chief Engineer)

MoC Form 1 Approved

Figure 2 - Class 1 EC flowchart




Class 1 EC Process 6.2.2.Once an MoC form 1 has been approved, development of the EC can commence.

Step 1. Once the ‘MoC Form 1’ has been approved, request an EC number from the ECRO.

Step 2. Complete the EC form as detailed in section 6.4.

Note 8: Refer to the ‘Engineering Change Form User Guide (L1-CHE-GDL-031)’ for how to access the EC form from the ‘The Depot’ (Intranet).

Step 3. Ensure relevant attachments are in PDF format only and attached to the EC. A list of typical attachments are listed below:

• MoC Form 1 and confirmation of approval (Mandatory)

• Risk assessment (L4-SQE-FOR-064) and attendance form (Mandatory)

• New/Amended drawings (IFC drawings/Detailed Drawings)

• New/Amended documents

• Design reports

• Test reports

• Technical Data Sheets

• Network Configuration Manual Impacted Changes

• Material Safety Data Sheets

• etc.

Step 4. Press the ‘Send Notification’ button to send the EC to the relevant ERM for review. Refer to ‘Engineering Change Form User Guide (L1-CHE-GDL-031)’.

6.3. Class 2 Engineering Changes If the CC considers that the change qualifies to be categorised as a ‘Class 2’ EC, it is strongly recommended that the CC discuss with both the ERM and relevant HoE(s) their case whilst the MoC Form 1 is being developed. A ‘Class 2’ EC follows a much less rigorous path of the EC process as depicted in Figure 3. Class 2 ECs are used for changes that are assessed having low enough risk and have negligible or no impact to Form/Fit/Function. Once agreed by both ERM and relevant HoE(s), the EC shall be taken to the ERB for ratification as a ‘Class 2’ EC.

Step 1. Once the ‘MoC Form 1’ has been approved request a EC number from the ECRO.

Step 2. Fill out the EC form as detailed in section 6.4.

Note 9: Refer to the ‘Engineering Change Form User Guide (L1-CHE-GDL-031)’ for how to access the EC form.

Step 3. Ensure relevant documents are in PDF format only and attached to the EC. A list of typical attachments are listed below:




• New/Amended drawings (IFC drawings/Detailed Drawings)

• New/Amended documents

• Risk Assessments and Attendance Sheet (if required)

• Technical Data Sheets

• etc.

Note 10: A risk assessment (L4-SQE-FOR-064) and attendance form is only required if requested by ERM or HoE.

Step 4. Press the ‘Send Notification’ button to send the EC to the relevant ERM for review. Refer to ‘Engineering Change Form User Guide (L1-CHE-GDL-031)’.

Class 2 EC flow chart 6.3.1.

EC categorised as Class 2

Develop and complete Class 2 EC

EC Authorisation (Relevant HoE )

Approved EC

Is a Risk Assessment Required?

Complete Risk

Assessment

Yes

No

MoC Form 1 Approved

EC Endorsement(HoEs/Delivery Managers/Fleet Managers other stakeholders)

Figure 3 - Class 2 EC flowchart




6.4. Compiling an Engineering Change

EC Number 6.4.1.The EC Number is the number supplied by the ECRO upon request by the CC and recoded on the EC Register. This is an admin-only field by which the EC number can only be entered by the ERM or ECRO subsequent to the provision of an approved MoC Form 1.

EC Title 6.4.2.The EC Title is entered by the CC on the EC form.

Engineering Change Status 6.4.3.The EC Status is a drop down menu, which indicates the status of the EC, this field is manually updated by the ERM or ECRO. Refer to Table 1 for status options.

Table 1- EC Status

Status Explanation

Under Development

This status is set when the EC is in development, this status shall remain in in place until the EC is has be approved by the ERM and the workflow is ready to begin.

In Approval Workflow

This status is set when the workflow has been initiated.

On Hold This status is set when the EC is placed ‘On Hold’ due to unforeseen circumstances.

EC Authorised

This status is set when the EC has been ‘Authorised’. Once this status is set the EC will become ‘read only’. Note: This status will only be set once the Chief Engineer (for Class 1 ECs) or the HoE (for Class 2 ECs) has approved the EC within the workflow.

EC Completed

This status is set when the EC has been implemented/installed. Verified to have operated in situ for a period of time judged as adequate to demonstrate accurate and reliable service (after the Asset Custodian (for Rolling Stock ECs only). Once this status is set the EC will become ‘read only’.

Withdrawn This status is set when an EC has been withdrawn by the Change Coordinator. Once this status is set the EC will become ‘read only’.

Superseded This status is set when an EC has been superseded by another EC, All impacted ECs should be modified to reference each other relevant EC. Once this status is set the EC will become ‘read only’.

Rejected This status is set when an EC has been rejected by the Chief Engineer (for Class 1 ECs) or the HoE (for Class 2 ECs), this type of rejection implies the EC is not proceeding as opposed to requesting changes to the EC. Once this status is set the EC will become ‘read only’.




Work Commence Date 6.4.1.The date that physical implementation is expected to commence.

Work Order Number 6.4.2.The Work Order Number allocated for the Change if applicable.

Note: Not adding a Work Order Number may add delay to the review of the EC.

ERB Number 6.4.3.The ‘ERB Number’ is an admin-only field that is completed by the ERM or ECRO and therefore can be ignored by the CC. The ERB number indicates at which ERB meeting the EC was initially presented.

EC Class 6.4.4.The ‘EC Class’ field by default will always be set to ‘Class 1’. An EC can only be classed as a ‘Class 2’ EC if agreed by both the ERM and relevant Head(s) of Engineering (HoE). Once agreed the EC shall be taken to the ERB for ratification.

Network Configuration Manual Impact 6.4.5.If there is Network Configuration Manual (formerly known as the Working Timetable Addenda) Impact then the CC shall check the ‘Network Configuration Manual Impact’ box as ‘Yes’. The CC shall attach the marked up page (or pages) of the Network Configuration Manual as an attachment to the EC highlighting the necessary changes. The CC will also be responsible to ensure the appropriate circular is generated and issued to update the Network Configuration Manual once the change has been implemented.

Authorisation Required 6.4.6.The ‘Authorisation Required’ fields of the EC form is where the relevant approvers are identified. The CC is to make a considered judgement of the approvers for review by the ERB and the ECRO will amend accordingly. Generally the list is comprised of but not limited to:

• The CC;

• The relevant ERM.

• The relevant HoE(s) and other identified stakeholder (e.g. Fleet managers) as endorsers;

• General Manager Rolling Stock (Rolling Stock only) as approver;

• Chief Engineer as authoriser; and

• General Manager Rolling Stock (Rolling Stock only) for completion.




MoC Number 6.4.7.Regardless of the EC Class the MoC Number related to the EC is to be entered. Confirmation of MoC Form 1 approval is required to be attached to the EC.

Other References 6.4.8.This a free field where the CC can enter any other references that may be relevant to the EC i.e. Rolling Stock Fleet Number.

EC Type 6.4.9.There are two possible options EC Types:

• Configuration; and

• Maintenance.

Note 11: The option ‘Technical Standard’ is no longer used, but remains on the EC form for historical purposes.

Multiple options can be selected if required.

EC Duration 6.4.10.EC Duration is the anticipated period that the proposed EC shall be in action for. There are three possible options for EC Duration:

• Permanent;

• Limited for; and

• Trial for.

When either the “Limited for’ or ‘Trial for’ options chosen the duration in either Days, Months or Years shall also be stated.

A change that is classified as a ‘Trial’ generally is to test the feasibility of the proposed change. A change that is classified as ‘Limited’ is a change that has been put in place for limited period, e.g. a foot bridge closure due to staged works of an EC.

Origin 6.4.11.The origin describes who or where the EC originated from, and state the purpose of the EC. The purpose of this section is to provide to the stakeholders background and a framework to understand the EC and where it may fit in with any strategic or future plans of MTM or other third parties, including the PTV.




Change Description 6.4.12.This section shall detail the change proposed by the EC, it shall provide enough information to the stakeholders so they can understand:

• Which assets are changing or being introduced;

• Specific boundaries of operation of the change; and

• Any specific details of maintenance change proposed.

The description shall be supported where applicable with attached documents such as drawings, depictions, photos, design reports (design calculations) etc.

Advantages 6.4.13.In this section, detail the advantages to be derived in adopting the change proposed by EC. It should be stated how this change benefits MTM and how the benefit will be realised and how success of the change is to be measured particularly for trial ECs.

In the event that the change bears little benefit to MTM, it should be detailed as to why this is the case, e.g. change is being requested by a third party,

Disadvantages 6.4.14.In the section detail any disadvantages (if any) of what the change proposed by EC. A disadvantage may be the loss of non-core capability of system.

Waivers 6.4.15.Provide a list of any waivers (if applicable) that relate to this EC. Waivers shall be approved and attached to the EC.

Assets Impacted 6.4.16.Provide in this section a description of all the assets that will be impacted by this EC, for example, carriage numbers, asset types, specific asset locations and EGIs. Though the EC may be a maintenance change, it is still required to list the assets that will be affected by the proposed maintenance changes.

Means of Identifying Change 6.4.17.Provides maintenance staff and auditors of our processes, the means of identifying the change that has been implemented. This may consist of a plan, identification of obvious changes, specific marking of equipment, manufacturers marks, version numbers for documents, etc.




Life Cycle Cost Impact 6.4.18.Any EC has the potential to affect the life cycle costs of the assets that are being maintained, including maintenance costs. For example if we introduce a change to improve reliability, but it requires a greater degree of maintenance intervention, this may increase the total life cycle cost of the assets it applies to, however at improved safety and performance levels.

To determine an accurate life cycle cost impact it is important to know the expected (useful) life of the asset. This is the duration that should be used to assess to the financial impacts before and after the implementation of the proposed EC.

The degree to which the life cycle cost impact is to be determined should be agreed with the Responsible Manager via the MoC Form 2. i.e. Infrastructure Delivery Manager or General Manager Rolling Stock.

Maintenance Impact 6.4.19.The maintenance impact should describe what impact the proposed EC will have on how maintenance is performed on our assets. This could include any specialised tools required, changes to the access arrangements to the assets, changes to how we monitor for conditional failures, changes to service requirements, etc.

The maintenance impact should also include if there is any increase in the maintenance effort and consequently resourcing required to maintain the assets.

Operational Impact 6.4.20.The operational impact is the impact generated by the EC on the manner by which Operations provide the rail services. This could include an impact on the train driver’s environment, signalling changes, training requirements, changes to safeworking procedures, etc.

The level of detail should be sufficient so that an Operations stakeholder is able to understand how the proposed EC will impact on operation of rail services and shall also be described in the MoC Form 2.

Risk Assessment Documentation 6.4.21.There are two options can be chosen using the radio buttons:

• Attach is a risk assessment (as per L4-SQE-FOR-064) that describe the risks generated by the EC and their control measures. Key risks and controls shall also be summarised as described in sections 6.4.21.1 through to 6.4.21.6.

• Attach no formal risk assessment (e.g. Class 2 EC), however this shall be determined by the ERB. The risks generated by the EC and their control measures shall describe in sections 6.4.21.1 through to 6.4.21.6.




6.4.21.1. Reliability & Availability The reliability and availability risks are those risks which have a potential to affect the asset performance and the time assets are available for use of the assets MTM that maintain.

For example, some reliability and availability risk may be, equipment not as reliable as anticipated, new equipment causes reliability issues with adjacent assets, new maintenance frequency may not allow for servicing leading to increase break-downs, applying new standards may lead to greater down-time of equipment.

6.4.21.2. Maintenance & Maintainability The maintenance and maintainability risks are those risks which have a potential to affect how maintenance is performed on assets and how easily that maintenance is able to be performed.

For example, some maintenance and maintainability risks may be, new equipment may be confused with current equipment and incorrect maintenance performed, hot weather may affect the ability of staff to access new equipment, location of new equipment may require new access equipment that MTM does not currently have.

6.4.21.3. Supportability, Spares & Training The supportability, spares and training risks are those risks which have a potential to affect the ability of MTM to support the maintenance staff to perform their maintenance, access to and appropriateness of spares and any special training required for new/changed assets or impacted maintenance practices.

For example, some supportability, spares and training risks may be, maintenance staff not available for training before new assets are commissioned, training leads to maintenance staff making errors on maintenance of other equipment, supplier goes bankrupt during life of the asset, spares are not suitable for the maintenance strategy applied by MTM, maintenance software does not operate on current IT equipment.

6.4.21.4. Safety & Environmental Safety and environmental risks are those risks which have a potential to cause harm to people, property and the environment.

For example, some safety and environmental risks may be, new maintenance tasks leading to Repetitive Strain Injury in maintenance staff, chemical/lubricant loss contaminating wetland area, staff caught between moving parts leading to injury, noise generated by new equipment adversely impact on local residents, new platform surface leads to an increase in falls at stations, etc.




6.4.21.5. Financial Financial risks are those risks which have the potential to affect the financial performance and sustainability of MTM and its Divisions and Departments. How funding is to be provided should be identified.

For example, some financial risks may be, expected life of new asset is greater than achieved in operation requiring renewal at an earlier cycle than budgeted for, anticipated costs of training are greater than planned, supplier increases costs of spares greater than allowed for in budget, poor equipment increases Passenger Weighted Minutes (PWMs).

6.4.21.6. Customer & Operational Customer and operational risks are those risks which have the potential to affect the customer experience of MTM rail services and the operation of MTM rail services.

For example, some customer and operational risks may be, design of station building leads to an increase in localised graffiti and customer complaints, new train radio system increases time it takes for drivers to log onto system after changing trains, new signal design creates confusion due to its similarity in shape, but difference in function to other signals, new escalators do not allow for easy two by two standing by customers slowing down egress from station, new platform shelters do not provide wet weather protection leading to crowding on platform and discomfort to customers, etc.

New Documents 6.4.22.This section shall list (or reference an attached list) any new documents that will be established as part of the implementation of this EC. It shall include documents/drawings by title and number.

Revised Documents 6.4.23.This section shall list (or reference an attached list) any documents that will be revised as part of the implementation of this EC. It shall include documents/drawings by title, number and revision status.

Withdrawn Documents 6.4.24.This section shall list (or reference an attached list) any documents that will be withdrawn as part of the implementation of this EC. It shall include documents/drawings by title, number and revision status.




Implementation Plan 6.4.25.The implementation plan is a list of all implementation tasks required to fully implement the EC. When all implementation tasks are complete, EC implementation is considered complete. This satisfies all responsibilities the CC has in relation to the proposed EC.

The detail of the implementation plan should be to a sufficient level in the key stages to give confidence to the ERM that all the tasks required will be completed and allowing for future auditing, but should not be so onerous as to list out every single step required to design, construct, commission, update records, etc. The majority of tasks listed on the implementation plan should be focused on ensuring all asset information data is updated as part of the EC implementation, any new instructions, training, spares and standards are available before commissioning, and any specific approval gates required during implementation of the EC.

For example some implementation tasks may be:

• Provide spares to signals depot • Occupation • Distribute new Maintenance Instruction to maintenance staff • Update PassAssets • Provide as-built drawings to DMS

Funding and Expenditure Responsibilities 6.4.26.The funding and expenditures section is to detail which area or organisation shall be responsible for funding of the implementation, maintenance, renewal and disposal of the EC.

Attachments 6.4.27.Attachments are to be in PDF format only (unless agreed with the ERM), this is eliminates the risk of unintended changes made to attachments and ensures the format is readable by all reviewers. Attachment shall also be cross-referenced within EC for context.

Expected attachments:

• MoC Form 1 and confirmation of approval • Risk assessment (L4-SQE-FOR-064) and attendance form(Mandatory

for Class 1 ECs) • New/Amended drawings (IFC drawings/Detailed Drawings) • New/Amended documents • Design reports • Test reports • Data Sheets • Depictions/Photos • Pertinent emails/correspondence • etc.




6.5. Engineering Change Approval As the EC form is in a SharePoint browser based format, it possess an in built workflow which is used to review and authorise the EC. The minimum required reviewers is depicted in Figure 4, however it should be noted that for every EC the reviewers shall be determined by the ERB. At the behest of the CE Figure 4 may be altered for an EC where required.

Preparation (Change

Coordinator)Endorser 2

Asset Custodian (RS only)ERM

End of Workflo

Start of Workfl

Workflow

Emai

l Sen

t to

ERM

and

En

gine

erin

g Ch

ange

Mai

lbox

Wor

kflo

w o

utpu

t sen

t via

e-

mai

l to

Engi

neer

ing

Chan

ge m

ailb

ox

‘Send Notification’

ERB

ERB

ERM Review

Endorser 1

Endorser n

Authoriser

EC Completion

EC Authorised

Figure 4 - EC Approval Process

6.6. Urgent Engineering Change Authorisation If it is necessary to implement a configuration or maintenance change before an EC can be authorised by the EC process, the CE may provide interim authorisation pending EC completion and authorisation. The approach to have an interim authorisation shall be made through relevant HoE or ERM. The CE shall document the interim authorisation, document any conditions (including timeframes) and notify the CC, ERM, and Asset Custodian (AC) (for Rolling Stock only).

6.7. Responsibilities

Change Coordinator (CC) is responsible for: 6.7.1.

• In collaboration with the ECRO, registering, filing and distribution of the EC.

• Gathering all design detail and information in support of the EC. • In collaboration with the ERM, determining the scope and depth of any

risks assessments required, and identification of all appropriate stakeholders.

• Ensuring any determined risks assessments are conducted and all identified stakeholders are consulted.

• Compiling the EC Document.




• Overall co-ordination of the implementation of the EC, such that all tasks listed in the EC Document are completed.

It is not a requirement for the CC to be technically proficient in all areas that are affected by the EC, but rather have the ability to determine where technical advice is required and seek support as appropriate.

The CC shall have an understanding of risk management and its principles, and how these principles can be utilised in developing the EC, and managing the risks the EC generates.

The EC Review Manager (ERM) is responsible for: 6.7.2.

• In collaboration with the CC, determining the scope and depth of risk assessments required, and determining the appropriate stakeholders to be consulted.

• Reviewing the completed EC Document with all associated risk assessments, designs, plans, analyses, etc., and ensuring the EC Procedure has been appropriately followed considering the risks and controls the EC generates.

• Acceptance of the EC Document as fully prepared and appropriate for further endorsement, approval and authorisation.

The role of the ERM is to ensure that each EC; is robust; technical aspects are appropriately approved; risk assessments cover all risks to an appropriate level; and provides sufficient information to allow endorsement, approval, and authorisation.

Endorsers (HoEs/Delivery Managers/Fleet Managers other Stakeholders) 6.7.3.are responsible for:

• Endorsing the change proposed by the EC in respect to the HoE’s discipline.

• Authorising the implementation of the Class 2 EC which in turn allows for the implementation of the change described in the EC to commence.

Chief Engineer (CE) is responsible for: 6.7.4.

• Authorising the implementation of the Class 1 EC which in turn allows for the implementation of the change described in the EC to commence.

Asset Custodian (AC) is responsible for: 6.7.5.

• Allowing the progression of an EC after the need for an EC is identified.

• Confirming a proposed CC or if required, nominating a CC for the EC. • Approving the implementation of the EC. • Accepting EC implementation completion and acceptance of residual

risks.




Note 12: The AC role is applicable to Rolling Stock ECs only By accepting EC implementation completion, the AC discharges the CC from any further responsibility in relation to EC implementation and accepts all residual risks generated by the implementation of the EC.

The AC for Rolling Stock is the GM Rolling Stock. The AC may delegate their responsibilities in relation to the EC Procedure except for ‘Approving the implementation of the EC’.

Engineering Change Review Officer (ECRO) is responsible for: 6.7.6.The ECRO shall perform the initial review of the EC prior to submission to the ERB. The ECRO shall update the EC Register to indicate the EC is completed, and file the EC Document appropriately.

7. Records The EC is a SharePoint browser based electronic form, SharePoint not only acts as the interface to the form but also is the repository for all EC since the Electronic EC form was introduced. To access the EC tool click on the below link.

http://teamsites.metrotrains.com.au/chiefengineer/ec/Pages/default.aspx

8. Engineering Change Guidance Notes The guidance notes below provide further detail several tasks that are required to complete the EC.

8.1. Approved Form 1 The CC shall ensure the associated MoC Form 1 has been approved for all ECs.

8.2. Register EC The CC shall advise the ECRO of the EC under development. The ECRO shall register the EC in the EC Register and shall provide the CC with the EC Number. The ECRO shall also type the EC Number in to the admin only field of the EC form.

8.3. Determine Scope and Depth of Risk Assessment: Determine Stakeholders The purpose of this step is to determine at an early stage all the appropriate stakeholders who will be affected by the EC. It is a further purpose of this step, based on the complexity of the EC, that an appropriate risk assessment scope and depth will be determined. The risk assessment shall use template L4-SQE-FOR-064.

The following criteria apply when planning risk assessments as part of EC process:

• An EC risk assessment will be held for all ECs, unless prior agreed otherwise by the Chief Engineer and/or ERM.

• EC risk assessments must use the current MTM risk assessment template (L4-SQE-FOR-064).

http://teamsites.metrotrains.com.au/chiefengineer/ec/Pages/default.aspx




• EC risk assessment will cover engineering/technical/system risks associated with the scope of the EC.

• Non-engineering/technical/systems risks, such as OH&S risks and construction/installation risks, will be assessed separately, captured in the Project Risk Register and addressed/implemented by the SWMS process and documentation.

• The Risk Assessment shall be FINAL and NOT in DRAFT. The risk assessment has gained final endorsement form the associated risk facilitator.

• Rejected Controls shall have the reason for their rejections included in the ‘Comments/Assumptions’ field of the risk assessment.

• All proposed Controls with the status of ‘Explore Further’ relating to the scope of the EC shall be resolved prior to the EC being submitted and have either an ‘Approved’ or ‘Rejected’ status.

Note 13: Any proposed Controls with the status of ‘Explore Further’ that extend beyond the scope of the EC (e.g. staged EC) shall have the rationale detailed in the ‘Comments/Assumptions’ field of the risk assessment .

Note 14: OH&S risks that are inherent in, and associated with, the product/system that is subject of the EC (for example inherent in the product’s design) may be considered and assessed as part of the EC risk assessment.

8.4. Review EC: The CC shall advise the ERM that EC is ready for review via the ‘Send Notification’ function in the EC tool. The ERM shall review the EC for completeness. It is not specifically the ERMs role to ensure the EC is technically feasible as this is the role of the endorsers that are to be determined by the ERB.

8.5. Obtain Approval and Authorisation. Once the ERM has reviewed the EC and has deemed to be acceptable to be formally reviewed the EC shall be sent to ERB to determine to appropriate endorsers. Once the endorsers of the EC have been identified the ERM (or ECRO if delegated) shall start the workflow within the EC tool.

The lead times set for review is 5 day for each reviewer with the goal of a 10 day lead time for the entire review.

8.6. Implement Change as per EC Document The CC shall oversee the list of tasks to implement the EC as per the EC Document.