Towards a knowledge-based approach for effective decision-making in railway safety

Purpose – This paper aims to contribute towards understanding how safety knowledge can be elicited from railway experts for the purposes of supporting effective decision-making. Design/methodology/approach – A consortium of safety experts from across the British railway industry is formed. Collaborative modelling of the knowledge domain is used as an approach to the elicitation of safety knowledge from experts. From this, a series of knowledge models is derived to inform decision-making. This is achieved by using Bayesian networks as a knowledge modelling scheme, underpinning a Safety Prognosis tool to serve meaningful prognostics information and visualise such information to predict safety violations. Findings – Collaborative modelling of safety-critical knowledge is a valid approach to knowledge elicitation and its sharing across the railway industry. This approach overcomes some of the key limitations of existing approaches to knowledge elicitation. Such models become an effective tool for prediction of safety cases by using railway data. This is demonstrated using passenger–train interaction safety data. Practical implications – This study contributes to practice in two main directions: by documenting an effective approach to knowledge elicitation and knowledge sharing, while also helping the transport industry to understand safety. Social implications – By supporting the railway industry in their efforts to understand safety, this research has the potential to benefit railway passengers, staff and communities in general, which is a priority for the transport sector. Originality/value – This research applies a knowledge elicitation approach to understanding safety based on collaborative modelling, which is a novel approach in the context of transport.

Commentary on Stationers' Company v. Carnan (1775)

Case in which the Court of Common Pleas decided that the Crown did not have the authority to grant exclusive prerogative rights over the printing of almanacs, a monopoly which the Stationers' Company had enjoyed, uncontested, since the formation of the ‘English Stock' in the early seventeenth century.
The commentary describes the background to the litigation, as well as the various strategies that the Stationers' Company employed in their efforts to regain control of the almanac market in the wake of the decision. It also explores how the decision provided the springboard for the emergence of a more contemporary concept of prerogative copyright. It was no longer thought that the Crown could grant printing patents over certain classes of work as of right. Rather, it was the monarch's unique constitutional position as head of both church and state that imposed an obligation to ensure the dissemination of authentic and authoritative versions of both legal and religious materials, and, from this obligation, the right to print the same arose.