GM4 SKPI Measurement of the effectiveness of safety management (EoSM) KPI -- ANSP level -- Verification mechanism

• found in: SKPI (2019/317) Safety Key Performance Indicators (Dec 2020)

GM4 SKPI Measurement of the effectiveness of safety management (EoSM) KPI — ANSP level — Verification mechanism Regulation (EU) 2019/317 A. VERIFICATION OF THE ANSP EoSM BY THE NSA/COMPETENT AUTHORITY When verifying the EoSM questionnaires completed by an ANSP, the competent authority/NSA may organise bilateral interview sessions. In these interview sessions, the NSA coordinator may ask the ANSP focal point some additional questions and request some additional evidence in order to verify the correctness of the answers provided for the questionnaire. It is the responsibility of the ANSP to complete the ANSP-level effectiveness-of-safety-management (EoSM) questionnaire and for the NSAs to verify the evidence submitted. When answering the questions, one out of four (from A to D) levels of implementation is to be selected. The ANSPs will select the implementation level that best describes their organisation, and provide evidence and a justification in support of the level selected. In order to ensure consistent interpretation of the questions, Table A presents a set of generic principles that are applicable to each maturity level, throughout the questionnaire. Table A: Generic principles for each implementation level <table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td valign="top" width="142"><p>Level A — Informal arrangements</p></td><td valign="top" width="142"><p>Level B — Defined</p></td><td valign="top" width="130"><p>Level C — Managed</p></td><td valign="top" width="149"><p>Level D — Assured</p></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" width="142"><p>SMS processes and/or requirements have not been agreed at the organisation level; they are either not routinely undertaken or depend on the individual assigned to the task.</p></td><td valign="top" width="142"><p>SMS processes and/or requirements are defined but not yet fully implemented, documented or consistently applied.</p></td><td valign="top" width="130"><p>SMS processes and/or requirements are fully documented and consistently applied.</p></td><td valign="top" width="149"><p>Evidence is available to provide confidence that SMS processes and/or requirements are being applied appropriately and are delivering positive, measurable results.</p></td></tr></table> In addition, examples of expected outcomes for each question that align with each implementation level, together with additional explanations, are provided at the end of each SA group, where necessary, in the Appendix to AMC3 SKPI, [GM3 SKPI](#_DxCrossRefBm1409944058) and [GM4 SKPI](#_DxCrossRefBm1409944056). Respondents are reminded that the answers should be conservative and ALL required elements have to be in place for a certain level. This includes the generic elements from Table A, as well as the particular elements suggested by the questionnaire in the Appendix to AMC3 SKPI, [GM3 SKPI](#_DxCrossRefBm1409944058) and [GM4 SKPI](#_DxCrossRefBm1409944056). Even if a certain level has only one or two elements still missing, then the lower level with all elements in place have to be selected. B. COORDINATION BETWEEN THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES/ NSAs FOR THE VERIFICATION OF THE ANSPs The competent authorities/NSAs might need better coordination between them in the verification process in order to achieve consistent and comparable results at European level. One potential solution could be the extension of the terms of reference for the NSA Coordination Platform (NCP) in the field of harmonisation of the verification mechanism of the SKPI at ANSP level. Notwithstanding the above and notwithstanding the fact that NSAs may delegate the verification task to a qualified entity, the responsibility for verification of the SKPI measurement at ANSP level lies with the competent authority/NSA.