Functional Safety 2014

Ensures that the FSMS is fit for purpose and withstands detailed stakeholder scrutiny / audit

and is underpinned further by appropriate third party assessment

Ensures that the safety elements engineered for the solution meet the requirements of the

standards in terms of functionality and reliability e.g. ABB’s 800xA Hi SIL 3 capable safety

controller

1.6. So are all FSMS Procedures the Same?

As with all supplier claims to competency and procedure / systems that are deployed to design and

engineer SIS solutions, the depth and rigour for key compliance requirements can vary greatly.

There is a stark difference between a self-declaration of conformity to IEC 61508 / IEC 61511 and an

accredited third party certificate from a leading Industry certification body such as TüV. The

effectiveness of any O&M FSMS can only be measured on the basis of the third party certification audit

to ensure it complies with the requirements of the safety standards. When it comes to the Asset

Owner/EPC making a selection on a supplier to design, engineer and verify the adequacy of a SIS

solution it follows that suppliers who have gone the extra mile effectively differentiate themselves from

the competition.

As the ultimate responsibility for functional safety management (FSMS) resides with the Asset Owner,

then clearly a professional and compliant approach to the development of the system utilising an

accredited FSMS methodology represents ‘best in class’ management of the functional safety

requirements. This allows traceability and transparency for FS requirements to be audited and

assessed by both in-company and regulatory stakeholders alike.

Likewise, the reciprocal to this approach for a solution developed by a less robust FSMS could lead to

the potential for:-

Misinterpretation of ITT technical solution responses by the project owners commercial team

during cost comparison analysis of response content

Project schedule slippages, due to time spent in clarifying TQs & PQs, performing impact

analysis and in-depth verification and validation for every change in the specification i.e. design

by TQ

Potential for expensive re-engineering of the solution at factory acceptance testing (FAT) based

on misinterpretation of requirements and poor functional safety management practices

regarding baseline assumptions and technical application, which invariably impacts on

resources and costs

The potential that a safety system that does not meet the necessary risk reduction could be

installed at site

Lack of demonstrable traceability to Industry good practice standards

Potential exposure to liabilities both corporately and professionally

Failure to recognise the asset management ‘inherent benefits’ of the technology solution offered

i.e. use of ABB 800xA asset management diagnostics features