On the use of the ‘Return Of Safety Investments’ (ROSI) measure for decision-making in the chemical processing industry

Due to the high potential of chemical and process industry to damage people, as well as to cause environmental contamination, there is a need of objective criteria and methods supporting plant operators to make decisions and optimise investments in safety measures. Currently, the use of risk-based approaches is popular in order to prioritize criticalities, based on the results of risk assessments; this approach is usually combined with cost-benefit analyses that provide criterions in the decision-making process. A commonly used framework to prioritise safety measures is based on the calculation of the return of safety investments (ROSI), which quantifies the expected return of the investment in safety with respect to the invested resources. In this paper the usefulness of such a framework is discussed and the need for an extension is shown using a case-study from the chemical processing industry. The study concluded that the ROSI should be used with caution, because it does not give a sufficient weight to uncertainties as it is based on the use of expected values. Some improvements to the framework are suggested, i.e. the assessment of ROSI given an accidental event and to highlight the importance of reflecting the strength of knowledge on which the ROSI metric is based.publishedVersio

Atrasentan and renal events in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (SONAR): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

Background: Short-term treatment for people with type 2 diabetes using a low dose of the selective endothelin A receptor antagonist atrasentan reduces albuminuria without causing significant sodium retention. We report the long-term effects of treatment with atrasentan on major renal outcomes. Methods: We did this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial at 689 sites in 41 countries. We enrolled adults aged 18–85 years with type 2 diabetes, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)25–75 mL/min per 1·73 m 2 of body surface area, and a urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR)of 300–5000 mg/g who had received maximum labelled or tolerated renin–angiotensin system inhibition for at least 4 weeks. Participants were given atrasentan 0·75 mg orally daily during an enrichment period before random group assignment. Those with a UACR decrease of at least 30% with no substantial fluid retention during the enrichment period (responders)were included in the double-blind treatment period. Responders were randomly assigned to receive either atrasentan 0·75 mg orally daily or placebo. All patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was a composite of doubling of serum creatinine (sustained for ≥30 days)or end-stage kidney disease (eGFR <15 mL/min per 1·73 m 2 sustained for ≥90 days, chronic dialysis for ≥90 days, kidney transplantation, or death from kidney failure)in the intention-to-treat population of all responders. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of their assigned study treatment. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01858532. Findings: Between May 17, 2013, and July 13, 2017, 11 087 patients were screened; 5117 entered the enrichment period, and 4711 completed the enrichment period. Of these, 2648 patients were responders and were randomly assigned to the atrasentan group (n=1325)or placebo group (n=1323). Median follow-up was 2·2 years (IQR 1·4–2·9). 79 (6·0%)of 1325 patients in the atrasentan group and 105 (7·9%)of 1323 in the placebo group had a primary composite renal endpoint event (hazard ratio [HR]0·65 [95% CI 0·49–0·88]; p=0·0047). Fluid retention and anaemia adverse events, which have been previously attributed to endothelin receptor antagonists, were more frequent in the atrasentan group than in the placebo group. Hospital admission for heart failure occurred in 47 (3·5%)of 1325 patients in the atrasentan group and 34 (2·6%)of 1323 patients in the placebo group (HR 1·33 [95% CI 0·85–2·07]; p=0·208). 58 (4·4%)patients in the atrasentan group and 52 (3·9%)in the placebo group died (HR 1·09 [95% CI 0·75–1·59]; p=0·65). Interpretation: Atrasentan reduced the risk of renal events in patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease who were selected to optimise efficacy and safety. These data support a potential role for selective endothelin receptor antagonists in protecting renal function in patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk of developing end-stage kidney disease. Funding: AbbVie

Cost Escalation in Road Construction Contracts

This paper presents a study of cost escalation in unit price road construction contracts. The aim is to investigate why the final cost of contracts differs from the agreed contract cost following tendering, both to identify causes of observed discrepancies and to suggest measures that could improve the planning and delivery of future projects. Road projects often consist of several contracts and as they account for the biggest costs of the projects, cost escalation in the contracts may increase the risk of project cost overrun. Even if contract cost performance is an important indicator of project success, it may be too simplistic to equate this with project success. It is quite possible to deliver a project within budget even if contract costs escalate, as long as the project cost contingency is adequate to cover such escalations. However, escalations in contracts increase the risk of project overrun and may lead to other problems such as conflicts and delays. The results show that most of the studied contracts experienced cost escalation. The main cause of the escalation was change orders to the scope that were not covered by the original contract. In addition, the results indicate that complexity represented by contract size, duration, and urban location increases the risk and size of cost overrun. Based on these findings, the paper presents some recommendations on how contract delivery can be improved as well as some implications for future research.publishedVersio

Cost Escalation in Road Construction Contracts

This paper presents a study of cost escalation in unit price road construction contracts. The aim is to investigate why the final cost of contracts differs from the agreed contract cost following tendering, both to identify causes of observed discrepancies and to suggest measures that could improve the planning and delivery of future projects. Road projects often consist of several contracts and as they account for the biggest costs of the projects, cost escalation in the contracts may increase the risk of project cost overrun. Even if contract cost performance is an important indicator of project success, it may be too simplistic to equate this with project success. It is quite possible to deliver a project within budget even if contract costs escalate, as long as the project cost contingency is adequate to cover such escalations. However, escalations in contracts increase the risk of project overrun and may lead to other problems such as conflicts and delays. The results show that most of the studied contracts experienced cost escalation. The main cause of the escalation was change orders to the scope that were not covered by the original contract. In addition, the results indicate that complexity represented by contract size, duration, and urban location increases the risk and size of cost overrun. Based on these findings, the paper presents some recommendations on how contract delivery can be improved as well as some implications for future research

Cost Escalation in Road Construction Contracts

This paper presents a study of cost escalation in unit price road construction contracts. The aim is to investigate why the final cost of contracts differs from the agreed contract cost following tendering, both to identify causes of observed discrepancies and to suggest measures that could improve the planning and delivery of future projects. Road projects often consist of several contracts and as they account for the biggest costs of the projects, cost escalation in the contracts may increase the risk of project cost overrun. Even if contract cost performance is an important indicator of project success, it may be too simplistic to equate this with project success. It is quite possible to deliver a project within budget even if contract costs escalate, as long as the project cost contingency is adequate to cover such escalations. However, escalations in contracts increase the risk of project overrun and may lead to other problems such as conflicts and delays. The results show that most of the studied contracts experienced cost escalation. The main cause of the escalation was change orders to the scope that were not covered by the original contract. In addition, the results indicate that complexity represented by contract size, duration, and urban location increases the risk and size of cost overrun. Based on these findings, the paper presents some recommendations on how contract delivery can be improved as well as some implications for future research

Are oil and natural gas going separate ways in the UK? Cointegration tests with Structural shifts.

..