Assessment 2 (2026): Technical Safety Case Report<\/strong><\/p>\n Module code:<\/strong> MOAS701 Assessment:<\/strong> Assessment 2 \u2013 Technical Safety Case Report Maritime and offshore operations operate under strict safety and environmental regimes that require systematic identification, assessment, and control of risks in line with goal-based regulation and industry standards such as the ISM Code, ISPS Code, and formal safety assessment guidance. Flag states, classification societies, and regulators increasingly expect operators to demonstrate that safety management systems are grounded in structured hazard analysis, robust barrier design, and continuous improvement rather than generic checklists. This assessment requires the preparation of a focused technical safety case for a defined maritime or offshore operation, integrating quantitative and qualitative methods to show how risks are identified, evaluated, and controlled to an acceptable level.<\/p>\n Prepare a 3,000\u20133,500-word technical safety case report for one selected maritime or offshore scenario from the list below, or an alternative scenario agreed with your module leader:<\/p>\n Tankers conducting ship-to-ship transfer at anchorage<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Offshore support vessel conducting dynamic positioning operations alongside an installation<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Ro-ro passenger ferry operating on a short-sea route with frequent turnarounds<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Container terminal yard stacking and transfer operations involving straddle carriers or RTGs<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Your report must:<\/p>\n Define the operational context, key stakeholders, and applicable regulatory and standards framework.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Identify and structure the main hazards using a recognised technique such as HAZID, a HAZOP-style adaptation, bow-tie analysis, or fault tree event structuring.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Assess risks using a suitable risk matrix or semi-quantitative method and justify the criteria adopted.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Specify existing and proposed risk control measures and barriers, clearly linking them to identified hazards and causal pathways.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Analyse residual risk and propose priority actions for improvement, including monitoring, training, procedural, and technological measures.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n i. Executive summary<\/strong> \u2013 concise overview of the scenario, key risks, and principal recommendations Word count:<\/strong> 3,000\u20133,500 words (plus or minus 10 percent), excluding executive summary, tables, figures, references, and appendices<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Methodology:<\/strong> Apply at least one structured hazard or risk analysis technique and present outputs clearly, such as bow-ties, tabulated HAZID sessions, or risk matrices<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Data and assumptions:<\/strong> Use realistic operational parameters and justify assumptions regarding frequency, exposure, and consequence, drawing on incident reports or studies where possible<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Integration:<\/strong> Demonstrate how proposed controls are embedded within existing safety management systems and day-to-day operations<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Referencing:<\/strong> Harvard style with emphasis on 2018\u20132026 academic and industry sources on maritime and offshore safety, human factors, and risk management<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Apply advanced hazard identification and risk assessment techniques to maritime and offshore operations<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Critically evaluate the effectiveness of safety barriers and control measures in complex socio-technical systems<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Develop structured, evidence-based safety case arguments suitable for regulatory and organisational scrutiny<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Communicate technical safety analysis and recommendations clearly to professional stakeholders<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Effective safety cases demonstrate how learning from incidents feeds back into barrier design and operational decision making rather than treating accidents as isolated anomalies. Reviews of maritime casualty investigations consistently show that latent organisational conditions, such as inadequate training, unclear authority, and production pressure, shape the effectiveness of technical safeguards over time. Incorporating these insights into hazard identification workshops and management reviews strengthens the credibility of the safety case and supports continuous improvement across the operation (Bhattacharya, 2020).<\/p>\n L\u00fctzen, M. and Lund, M. (2019) \u2018Risk assessment of dynamic positioning operations in offshore shipping\u2019, Safety Science<\/em>, 120, pp. 1\u201310.<\/p>\n World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews (2024) \u2018Advancing maritime operations: sustainable practices and enhanced safety protocols for global shipping\u2019, WJARR<\/em>, 22(3), pp. 1\u201315.<\/p>\n MLA College (2025) BSc Sustainable Maritime Operations Programme Quality Handbook 2024\u201325<\/em>.<\/p>\n IMO (2018) Revised Guidelines for Formal Safety Assessment for use in the IMO rule-making process<\/em>, MSC-MEPC.2\/Circ.12\/Rev.2. London: IMO.<\/p>\n American Bureau of Shipping (2021) Guidance Notes on Risk Assessment Applications for the Marine and Offshore Oil and Gas Industries<\/em>. Houston: ABS.<\/p>\n Bhattacharya, S. (2020) \u2018Human and organisational factors in maritime safety\u2019, WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs<\/em>, 19(2), pp. 151\u2013170.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" MOAS701 \u2013 Maritime and Offshore Safety Analysis Assessment 2 (2026): Technical Safety Case Report Module and Assessment Overview Module code: MOAS701Module title: Maritime and Offshore…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2138,3151,2792],"tags":[3149,3147,3146,3148,3145,3150],"class_list":["post-1263","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-maritime-safety","category-maritime-and-offshore-safety","category-maritime-safety-risk-and-operations","tag-dp-operations-risk-control-coursework","tag-hazard-identification-and-risk-assessment-report","tag-maritime-and-offshore-safety-case","tag-masters-level-maritime-safety-assessment","tag-moas701-safety-analysis-assignment","tag-offshore-safety-management-technical-report"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/dissertations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1263","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/dissertations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/dissertations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/dissertations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/dissertations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1263"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/dissertations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1263\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1264,"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/dissertations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1263\/revisions\/1264"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/dissertations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1263"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/dissertations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1263"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.essaybishops.com\/dissertations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1263"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Module and Assessment Overview<\/h2>\n
Module title:<\/strong> Maritime and Offshore Safety Analysis
Level:<\/strong> 7 (Masters)
Credit value:<\/strong> 20 credits
Academic year:<\/strong> 2025\u20132026
Maritime safety, offshore engineering, or maritime operations MSc programmes in the UK, and related jurisdictions.<\/p>\n
Weighting:<\/strong> 50 percent of module total
Submission format:<\/strong> Individual written report, 3,000\u20133,500 words (plus or minus 10 percent) with schematic or diagram appendices
Submission mode:<\/strong> Online via the VLE (Word or PDF, Turnitin enabled)<\/p>\nAssessment Context<\/h2>\n
Assessment Brief<\/h2>\n
Task Description<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
Suggested Structure<\/h3>\n
ii. Introduction and scope<\/strong> \u2013 description of the operation, system boundaries, stakeholders, and objectives of the safety case
iii. Regulatory and standards framework<\/strong> \u2013 mapping of relevant conventions, codes, class rules, and industry guidance
iv. Hazard identification<\/strong> \u2013 method used, results, and structuring of hazards into categories such as people, equipment, environment, and organisation
v. Risk assessment<\/strong> \u2013 likelihood and consequence framework, risk matrix, discussion of uncertainties, and key risk drivers
vi. Risk control measures and barriers<\/strong> \u2013 existing controls, proposed additional measures, barrier effectiveness, and degradation factors
vii. Recommendations and implementation<\/strong> \u2013 prioritised action plan, monitoring and review proposals, and links to safety management systems
viii. Conclusion<\/strong> \u2013 synthesis of findings and reflection on limitations
ix. References<\/strong> \u2013 minimum of 15 credible sources in Harvard style
x. Appendices<\/strong> \u2013 risk matrices, bow-tie diagrams, tabulated HAZID outputs, or similar artefacts<\/p>\nSpecific Requirements<\/h3>\n
\n
Learning Outcomes Assessed<\/h2>\n
\n
\u00a0Marking Rubric<\/h2>\n
\n\n
\n \nCriterion<\/th>\n Weighting<\/th>\n High Distinction \/ Distinction<\/th>\n Credit \/ Pass<\/th>\n Fail<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n \n Depth of safety and risk knowledge<\/td>\n 25%<\/td>\n Excellent command of maritime and offshore safety concepts with strong integration of recent literature and guidance<\/td>\n Solid understanding with some gaps in advanced material<\/td>\n Superficial understanding or misapplication of key concepts<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Quality of hazard and risk analysis<\/td>\n 35%<\/td>\n Systematic hazard identification and transparent risk assessment with appropriate treatment of uncertainty<\/td>\n Generally sound analysis with minor inconsistencies<\/td>\n Poorly structured hazards or unsupported risk assessment<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Design and evaluation of control measures<\/td>\n 20%<\/td>\n Realistic, layered controls clearly linked to hazards with critical analysis of barrier performance<\/td>\n Mostly appropriate controls with limited depth<\/td>\n Generic or impractical controls disconnected from risks<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Structure, clarity, and technical communication<\/td>\n 10%<\/td>\n Well organised and accessible to professional readers with effective figures and tables<\/td>\n Understandable structure with some weak signposting<\/td>\n Disorganised narrative and unclear presentation<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Use of sources and referencing<\/td>\n 10%<\/td>\n Relevant, recent sources integrated effectively with consistent Harvard referencing<\/td>\n Mostly relevant sources with minor errors<\/td>\n Limited or outdated sources with poor referencing<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n \u00a0References \/ Learning Resources (Harvard)<\/h2>\n