Digital Lock On

Appearance

Decision: Worker Competency Requirements for Lock-On ​

Quick Summary ​

What competency model should govern worker lock-on permissions, including competency combinations, role-based assumptions, and specialised qualifications like First Aid?

Context ​

The digital lock-on system needs to define competency requirements for workers participating in protection activities. The list of valid roles includes:

  • C: Competent and Current
  • DS: Under Direct Supervision
  • WS: Works Supervisor
  • FA: First Aid Qualified
  • V: Vehicle
  • MP: Mobile Plant
  • HRV: Hi-Rail Vehicle
  • MPC: Mobile Plant Controller
  • ESO: Electrical Safety Observer
  • RSO: Rail Safety Observer
  • GMO: Gas Monitor Observer
  • STMS: Site Traffic Management Supervisor

Several fundamental questions about competency handling have emerged during design.

Current State:

  • System supports competency selection during worker lock-on
  • Logically, workers could potentially invoke multiple competencies (C+WS+MPC+FA, etc.)
  • Senior roles (Supervisor, Controller, Observer) exist but competency requirements unclear
  • Direct Supervision (DS) model exists for workers requiring oversight

Business Context:

  • Worker competency verification is safety-critical for rail operations
  • Different worker roles have different levels of autonomy and responsibility
  • First Aid qualification valuable for emergency response planning
  • Balance needed between safety assurance and operational efficiency

Safety Context:

  • Incorrect competency designation could lead to safety incidents
  • All workers must either be competent for their role or under direct supervision
  • Clear competency model needed for audit and compliance purposes
  • Emergency response capabilities enhanced by First Aid qualified personnel
  • Displaying the correct competencies for the Site Protector to view is integral to them managing their worksite and knowing who to contact given various situations

Decision Required ​

What competency model should govern worker participation in protection activities, including competency combinations?

Success Criteria ​

What does a good decision look like?

  • [ ] Ensures all workers have appropriate competency for their role
  • [ ] Supports real-world competency combinations workers actually possess
  • [ ] Aligns technical model with business processes and role assignments
  • [ ] Enables emergency response planning through qualification visibility
  • [ ] Supports audit and compliance requirements
  • [ ] Balances flexibility with safety assurance

Options ​

Option 1: Full Multi-Select Competencies ​

Description: Allow workers to choose all relevant competencies they possess, with most workers selecting "C" plus additional specialised roles. First Aid is treated as any other competency in the selection list.

Analysis

User Experience:

  • Workers select all competencies that apply to them (e.g., C + WS + FA + MPC)
  • Natural reflection of real-world qualifications
  • Single comprehensive selection process
  • First Aid treated equivalently to other competencies

Business Logic:

  • "C" (Competent and Current) explicitly selected in most cases
  • "DS" (Direct Supervision) only selected when worker is not competent
  • All selected competencies visible to Site Protector for worksite management
  • No implicit assumptions about competency based on role selection

Pros:

  • Reflects real-world scenarios where workers have multiple qualifications
  • Complete visibility of all worker capabilities for emergency response planning
  • Flexible role assignment based on actual worker capabilities
  • Simple, consistent selection model across all worker types
  • Site Protector can see full competency profile for optimal work assignment
  • Supports audit requirements with explicit competency declaration

Cons:

  • Longer selection process for workers with many competencies
  • Potential UI complexity with many checkboxes/selections
  • Risk of workers forgetting to select relevant competencies
  • May lead to over-selection of competencies workers don't actively use

Risks:

  • Workers over-declare competencies they're not actively qualified for - Mitigation: Clear UI guidance and periodic competency verification
  • Complex UI leads to user errors or incomplete selections - Mitigation: Smart defaults and validation
  • First Aid selection forgotten when it's critical for emergency planning - Mitigation: Contextual prompts for important qualifications

Implementation Effort: 2-3 weeks (multiple selection UI, validation logic, data model updates) Maintenance Overhead: Low-Medium (straightforward validation, periodic competency verification)

Option 2: Primary Role Selection with Implied Competency ​

Description: Workers choose their most relevant competency for the day, with "C" implied for all roles except "DS". First Aid becomes a separately selectable qualification.

Analysis

User Experience:

  • Workers select primary role/competency for the current work (e.g., WS, MPC, ESO)
  • "C" automatically implied unless "DS" is explicitly chosen
  • First Aid available as separate, additional qualification selection
  • Streamlined selection focused on day's primary responsibility

Business Logic:

  • All roles except "DS" automatically include competency ("C" is implied)
  • "DS" selection explicitly indicates non-competent status requiring supervision
  • First Aid tracked separately for emergency response planning
  • Focus on most relevant role rather than comprehensive qualification listing

Pros:

  • Streamlined UI focused on primary role for the day
  • Automatic competency assumption reduces selection burden
  • Clear distinction between competent workers and those requiring supervision
  • First Aid maintained as visible qualification for emergency planning
  • Simpler mental model aligned with daily work assignment
  • Reduced cognitive load during lock-on process

Cons:

  • Doesn't capture full worker qualification profile
  • Site Protector has limited visibility of worker's other competencies
  • May not reflect situations where multiple competencies are relevant
  • Risk that implied competency assumptions don't align with actual qualifications
  • Potential confusion about when "C" is implied vs explicit

Risks:

  • Implied competency model doesn't match business processes - Mitigation: Validate assumptions with business stakeholders
  • Important secondary qualifications become invisible - Mitigation: Separate qualification tracking or expanded First Aid model
  • Workers confused about when competency is assumed - Mitigation: Clear UI design and training

Implementation Effort: 2-3 weeks (primary selection UI, implied competency logic, separate First Aid handling) Maintenance Overhead: Medium (ongoing validation of competency assumptions, separate First Aid management)

Constraints & Requirements ​

Must Have ​

  • Clear safety boundaries ensuring appropriate competency for role
  • Support for Direct Supervision model for non-competent workers
  • Audit trail showing competency decisions and rationale
  • Alignment with existing business processes and role assignments
  • Technical model that reflects actual worker qualifications

Should Have ​

  • Minimal UI friction for common competency scenarios
  • Support for emergency response planning through qualification visibility
  • Flexibility to accommodate regional or role-specific variations
  • Clear user understanding of competency requirements
  • Efficient lock-on process for qualified workers

Must Not ​

  • Allow safety-critical roles without appropriate competency verification
  • Create unnecessary barriers for competent workers
  • Conflict with existing business role assignment processes
  • Introduce competency assumptions that aren't validated by business processes

Research & Evidence ​

Completed Research ​

  • [x] Current competency selection analysis - Result: Support for multiple selections but unclear business rules
  • [x] Business role assignment investigation - Result: Senior roles assigned based on competency
  • [x] DS supervision model - Result: Clear framework for non-competent worker oversight
  • [x] First Aid qualification usage - Result: Used for emergency response planning

Outstanding Research ​

  • [ ] Survey business stakeholders on competency combination scenarios
  • [ ] Validate senior role competency assumptions with role assignment processes
  • [ ] Assess emergency response requirements for First Aid qualification tracking
  • [ ] Review audit requirements for competency verification

Evidence & Data ​

  • Business assigns senior roles (Supervisor, Controller, Observer) based on competency verification
  • Workers commonly possess multiple relevant qualifications
  • Emergency response plans benefit from First Aid qualified personnel visibility
  • Current system allows multiple competency selection but lacks clear business rules

Stakeholders & RACI ​

RolePerson/TeamResponsibleAccountableConsultedInformed
Decision MakerProduct Owner✅
Safety ManagerSafety Team✅
Business Process OwnerOperations Team✅
Technical LeadDevelopment Team✅
Field OperationsRPOs & Site Protectors✅
Emergency ResponseSafety/Emergency Team✅
Implementation TeamDevelopment Team✅

Impact Assessment ​

Blocked Items ​

  • Worker competency verification UI design awaits competency model
  • QR code payload definition requires competency structure
  • Role-based access control implementation depends on competency assumptions

Affected Components ​

  • Worker Management UI - Impact: UI changes for competency selection model (both options require redesign)
  • Competency Validation Service - Impact: Validation logic updates for chosen model
  • QR Code Generation - Impact: Competency data structure in QR payload
  • Database Schema - Impact: Worker competency data model updates
  • Audit System - Impact: Competency verification logging and reporting

Timeline Impact ​

  • If decided by deadline: Can proceed with competency UI implementation
  • If delayed by 1 week: Minor impact on UI development timeline
  • If delayed by 1 month: Blocks worker management features and QR implementation

Decision Log ​

DateUpdateAuthor
2025-09-09Decision created based on competency questions from role/UI design discussionsSimon + Claude
2025-09-11Refined options to focus on two clear models: full multi-select vs primary role with implied competencySimon + Claude

Next Actions ​

Immediate (Next 3 Days) ​

  • [ ] Review competency model with Safety Team
  • [ ] Validate senior role assumptions with Business Process Owner
  • [ ] Assess multiple competency scenarios with Field Operations

Short Term (Next 2 Weeks) ​

  • [ ] Consult with Emergency Response team on First Aid qualification requirements
  • [ ] Review audit requirements for competency verification
  • [ ] Survey field operations on common competency combinations
  • [ ] Make final decision

Decision Meeting ​

  • Scheduled: [To be scheduled]
  • Attendees: Product Owner, Safety Manager, Business Process Owner, Technical Lead, Field Operations Representative
  • Agenda: Review competency options, validate business assumptions, make decision

Requirements ​

  • [To be linked]: Worker role definition requirements
  • [To be linked]: Safety competency requirements
  • [To be linked]: Emergency response requirements

Specifications ​

  • [To be linked]: Worker management UI specification
  • [To be linked]: Competency validation service specification

Decision Outcome ​

To be filled when decision is made

Final Decision: [Decision made]
Rationale: [Why this decision was made]
Decision Date: [Date]

Internal use only