Altaf, A (2022) Integrating safety, security and human factors engineering in rail infrastructure design and evaluation. PhD thesis, Bournemouth University, UK.
Abstract
With the new emerging dependency towards the rail industry, there have been growing concerns on how to make this critical infrastructure more adaptable in this technological era of cyber attacks. Currently, the rail infrastructure is built around safety and human factors, but one important factor which has less attention is cyber security. In order to satisfy the security needs of rail stakeholders, there is a need to put together knowledge in the form of design framework by combining safety and human factors, with cyber security. The research problem this PhD thesis addresses is how the process-techniques and tool- support available in safety, security and human factors engineering can be integrated to provide design solutions in rail infrastructure. This PhD thesis claims that proposed design framework is an exemplar by making three significant contributions. Firstly, it identifies the integration of concepts between safety, security and human factors engineering. Secondly, based on integration it pro- vides an integrated design framework where Integrating Requirements and Information Security (IRIS), use-case specifications informed Task Analysis (TA) using Cognitive Task Analysis (CTA) and Hierarchical Task Analysis (HTA), Human Factors Analysis and Clas- sification System (HFACS) frameworks are used to inform Systems-Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA). This integrated design framework is tool-supported using the open- source Computer Aided Integrating Requirements and Information Security (CAIRIS) platform. Thirdly, the proposed design framework in the form of process-techniques and tool-support is implemented by rail infrastructure to determine the safe, secure and us- able design solutions. This PhD thesis is validated by applying the design framework to three case studies. In the first, preliminary evaluation is carried out by applying it to a case study of 'Polish Tram Incident', where inter-dependencies between safety, security, and human factors engineering are present. In the second, the results are used to inform TA using use-case specifications format by prototyping the role of European Railway Traffic Management System (ERTMS) - Signaller, which provides human factors experts a chance to work in collaboration with safety and security design experts. In the final case study, with the support of representative rail stakeholders from Ricardo Rail is used to implement STPA on case study of 'Cambrian Railway Incident'.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | process analysis; security; railway; traffic; collaboration; integration; safety; case study; specification; stakeholder |
| Index terms: | human factor, collaboration, integration, prototyping, specification, design framework, critical infrastructure, traffic management, task analysis, process analysis, platform, case study |
| Subjects: | design practice, management, contractual condition, occupational health and safety management, organizational analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, data collection methods, digital design, scope management, operations management, innovation and technology management |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Design Practice, Site Management, Organizational Design, Contract Administration, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Engineering Principles, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here