ENGG404 Rubric1 Prelim RCA Chart 2023F v20231015

ENGG404 Preliminary RCA Chart Review Meeting Marking Rubric: 1 of 1 2023F ITEM Marks Submit the RCA Chart in PDF file type onto eClass with filename in this format: ENGG404 202yt Team nnn company-location Prelim RCA Chart.pdf where:  “y” completes the year of the academic term  “t” is the term e.g. F or W or S  “nnn” is your team number  “company - location” is a two -word descriptor of your loss incident e.g. Sunrise-Toronto  No underscores. e.g. ENGG404 2020F Team 455 Sunrise-Toronto Prelim RCA Chart.pdf Award 5 marks for a correct file-name, 0 marks for any deviation from this standard. 5 Review Meeting – Verbal Narrative of The Three Roots: Marks Team: A member of the team verbally applies the “narrative technique” for the three roots in the preliminary RCA chart. Start at th e Incident Description, through the immediate causes, through the basic causes, through the latent causes, and ending at the relevant risk management system elements, with suitable intermediate causes throughout. Professor: If the student does not correctly apply the narrative technique as described in the Team Project Instruction Manual, the professor should interrupt immediately and instruct the student to strictly apply the narrative technique. The value is in applying the narrative technique in order to reveal logic leaps. Quality of Verbal Narratives: Award marks for the verbal narrative of the three roots as follows:  The narrative is exactly verbatim of the roots as shown in the RCA Chart; “ ums and ahs ” don’t count for deductions . (10 marks)  The narrative is interspersed with one additional explanation on one cause box. (8 marks)  The narrative is interspersed with two to three additional explanations on two or more cause boxes. (4 marks)  The narrative is interspersed with four or more additional explanations on four or more cause boxes. (0 marks) The weighting of the marks is to motivate students to “apply to the narrative technique” so that they may reveal the logic leaps and irrational causations prior to presenting the RCA Chart. 10 marks total Review Meeting – Preliminary RCA Chart Items as Documented on the Chart: Marks Start the RCA Chart with a clearly and succinctly stated Incident Description. A well-stated Incident Description will include: the date, the location (city and province/state/country), the core of the incident (e.g. explosion, or fire, or collapse or breach), and the impacts on PEAP in quantified terms. Imagine you are working, that you have done an extensive investigation, and now you are presenting your findings within your organization. A well-developed RCA should be a standalone document that tells the why & how of the incident, and this starts with the incident description box at the top of the chart. Here are two equally good examples of a well-stated Incident Description (the bold italics text indicates key points of your incident description – you do NOT need to include the bold, italics in your statement): On October 12, 2019 (when) in New Orleans, LA, (where) at the Hard Rock Hotel (company name) , the hotel structure buckled and collapsed (overall nature of the loss incident) . (Impacts on PEAP follow) (P): Three (3) workers were killed and 19 were injured. (E): Immediately following the collapse, a large amount of debris and dust were released into the air impacting the surrounding area. (A): This collapse resulted in the full demolition of the hotel, and 3 of the surrounding buildings, a loss of $450 million in assets and demolition and clean-up costs of $10 million. (P): The hotel was never rebuilt at a loss of $26 million in annual sales revenues. On October 12, 2019 (when) in New Orleans, LA, (where) at the Hard Rock Hotel (company name) , a key structural column within the hotel structure buckled and collapsed (an event leading up to the loss incident) , resulting in the collapse of the entire hotel structure (overall nature of the loss incident) . (Impacts on P): Three (3) workers were killed and 19 were injured. (E): Immediately following the collapse, a large amount of debris and dust were released into the air and contaminated the surrounding area. (A): This collapse resulted in the full demolition of the hotel, and 3 of the surrounding buildings, a loss of $450 million in assets and demolition and clean-up costs of $10 million. (P): The hotel was never rebuilt at a loss of $26 million in annual sales revenues. 10 Present Three Roots, 1 mark each, 3 marks total 3 Correctly use and code AND gates and OR gates 3 Each root rationally and logically flows from the Incident Description, through the immediate, basic, and intermediate causes to the latent cause, 2 marks per root, 6 marks total 6 Immediate Causes are labelled, numbered, and categorized correctly; marks are awarded for labelling, numbering, and categorizing correctly; e.g. I1-SP and/or I2- SC; look for at least two IC’s in the chart; 2 IC ’s x 3 marks per IC = 6 marks total 6 Basic Causes are labelled, numbered, categorized correctly and subcategorized correctly; marks are awarded for labelling, numbering, and categorizing correctly; e.g. B1-EDF inadequate technical design, B2-JF inadequate training, B3-PF improper motivation; look for at least 3 BC’s in the chart; mark as 3 BC ’s x 3 marks per BC = 9 marks total 9 Three latent causes are labelled, numbered, categorized, and clearly stated in terms specific and unique to the loss incident, 4 marks per LC, 12 marks total. A “model” latent cause statement: “ LC1-S: The risk assessment program did not include a standard to assess the risks to online accounts with sub-standard password practices .” Notes: It is identified as a latent cause, is numbered, is categorized, refers to the program of an element, and is specific and unique, not stated in generalized terms. 4x3=1 2 State three different risk management system elements (#2 through #11), each one relating to one latent cause. RME #1 MLCA must NOT be used. Correct the Team but do not apply a deduction on the Preliminary. 3 Quality of responses to questions 3 Total: 70