The Tour de France: A Systems of Systems Analysis for Rider Security - Term Paper Example

?7/18 ENMA 715/815 | Bob See Berger Contents Contents Introduction 2 Framing of the SoSE problem 3 1.Risk from spectators 4 2.Risk from other cyclists 4 1.3.Risk from hired personnel 5 1.4.Risks emerging from the use of bicycles 6 1.5.Application of soft systems methodology 7 2.Unique systems based methodology 7 2.1.Methodology on spectator risk 8 2.2.Methodology on risk from fellow cyclists 10 2.3.Methodology on risk from hired personnel 11 2.4.Methodology on risk from bicycles 12 3.Methodology Application 12 3.1.Solutions used 12 3.1.1.Counter checking the risk of spectators 12 3.1.2.Inter-cyclist feud 13 3.1.3.Preventing the danger posed by hired personnel 13 3.1.4.Danger from bicycles 14 3.2.Results 15 3.2.1.Barrier 15 3.2.2.Inter cyclists’ feud 15 3.2.3.Hired personnel 15 3.2.4.Bicycle regulations 16 3.3.Success vs. Failure 16 4.Evaluation of a systems analysis effort 17 Bibliography 19 Introduction Systems of Systems Engineering refer to an analysis effort of solving a problem. This solution is staged into 7 perspectives (K. M. Keating). These are: 1. Identifying the problem which is referred to as framing of the problem – the nature of the problem is explained by designing its structure. Elements of the process involved in the problem are also identified. 2. Establishing a unique methodology (proposed solution) – a problem solving mechanism is made. This mechanism is called a “unique methodology” because it aims at finding a unique way of solving the problem which is also unique in its own way. This proposed solution considers the elements of the process involved in the problem. 3. A problem solving framework is designed this is also called the SoSE team – this segment involves evaluating the team knowledge, their skills as well as abilities. The KSA of the team is then matched with the strategy of the unique methodology that is to be employed. After matching the capabilities with the strategy the team is then given assignments and expectations for the study. 4. SoSE exploration and analysis – this involves building the SoSE management plan which outlines the organisation of SoSE study. It also explains the team structure and the means through which the aims of the study will be achieved. 5. Transforming the analysis into action – analysis conducted above is used to guide the implementation of the study. Here the objectives and nature of implementation are identified. 6. Reporting the results of the SoSE study – this provides the information as to whether the study worked out or not. 7. Evaluating the SoSE study- this gives a conclusion as to whether the study is a success or failure. It also gives a plan for a follow up if successful and follow-through if not successful. The chart below gives a more diagrammatical explanation of the SoSE study. 1. Framing of the SoSE problem A problem can be referred to as a gap that is thought to be between the situation that is current and the desired situation (Keating 3). According to my title the problem that I am going to frame is the security risks faced by bicycle riders who participate in the Tour de France. The tour de France as stated in the proposal is an annual bicycle endurance race across France and neighbouring countries established in 1903 which usually begins the first Saturday in July. The cyclists endure many challenges including a distance of over 2000miles, 3 continuous weeks of cycling and in addition to that competition from fellow cyclists (Checkland 78). 1.1. Risk from spectators One of the less recognised challenges faced by these cyclists is the insecurity that they face.This is especially due to the fact that the competition has over 15 million spectators with as many as ten thousand in a mile with only 25,000 security personnel manning them. This ratio of 600 fans to 1 security personnel is overwhelming especially if a stampede was to occur. Given that there are 200 cyclists on average, the protection of these long distance riders would not only prove to be a major problem but could also lead to a life threatening situation. In the history of the Tour de France,the first race to be ever held was marked by violence whereby some of the riders were attacked by rival fans. This is one case scenario that highlights not only the danger but also the evidence of security threats faced by the cyclists (Fabrycky 45). 1.2. Risk from other cyclists Another security concern is the inter cyclists feud which may trigger attacks between one another. It is common to hear of a bicycle pile up whereby two or more cyclists crash into one another. As much as it is almost impossible to distinguish who attacked who the conclusion is that the pile up is mostly caused by one cyclist attacking another either through the collision of the bicycles or the use of the body. In one incident, the most renown as well as record holder with the highest number of wins in the Tour de France; Lance Armstrong was involved in a bicycle pileup in 2009 which led to him breaking his collarbone and forcefully retiring (Gibbs, 21). As much as it is not possible to distinguish foul play, it is probable that he was a target of the same given his superiority in the field. This is the trickiest of all malicious intentions to identify because not only does it affect many cyclists without singling out a target it can also be referred to being an accident. In addition to that the cause is not easily identifiable. This is because elements that would otherwise be used to represent evidence such as cameras are not focused on one cyclist but on the cyclists as a group hence it is very easy to miss the “moment”. 1.3. Risk from hired personnel Security threats for the cyclists may also come in form of paid mercenaries. These couldbe disguised as media personalities, security personnel or even fellow cyclists as highlighted above. These disguised people may prove to be the most dangerous since they assume roles that are assigned to trustworthy people. In any case whenever they execute their assigned duties they will be the last people to appear on the suspects’list. They do not necessarily have to be hired and could be servicing their own intentions. Their mode of work could range from drugging, poisoning to even killing. The earliest of deaths ever recorded in the Tour involved a French racer; Adolphe Heliere who died in 1910 during a rest day of the race. Killing and poisoning are however the less frequent of occurrencesin regards to insecurity to cyclists since taking of life is too much of a risk to take in order to manipulate the results. On the other hand drugging is a common phenomenon with these events whereby cyclists have been known to take drugs in order to suppress the pain or even increase their performance. This use of drugs has been reported ever since the first race that was in 1903. It is such a big deal that anti-doping mechanisms are in place and tests are carried out in order to catch those who use drugs in the race. The taking of drugs has proved fatal whereby a British cyclist; Tom Simpson died while ascending Mont Ventoux under the influence of amphetamine. Since drug tests are carried out before the race, the cyclists avoid taking drugs prior to the race and have people supply them with the drugs during the course of the race. The people closest to the cyclists during the race are none other than the masquerades who assume the roles of the media, security personnel, bicycle repairers, care takers and so and so forth. When they supply these drugs they may end up helping or ruining the cyclists’ race prospects. Either way they pose a security threat to the cyclists since they could be fatal. At the same time performance enhancing drugs are always damaging to a person’s health which is another risk. 1.4. Risks emerging from the use of bicycles Bicycles also pose risks to the cyclists.This is because faulty bicycles can prove to be a hazard when they break down. As pointed out earlier cyclists are known to use drugs to suppress the pain that they endure. This pain could originate from bicycles that are either faulty or have not been made to cater for comfort. Since this is a race that tests speed and endurance, the bicycles could be made in such a way that the enhancing of speed overlooks the comfort of the rider. For instance the cyclist Lance Armstrong who is well known for his prowess in cycling once suffered testicular cancer (Gibbs 12). This ailment went as far as threatening his ability to father children whereby he fathered children through sperm he had banked previously.He was reported to have a tumour that had spread to his lungs and brain. The treatments that he underwent for his cancer included testicular and brain surgery and extensive chemotherapy.Given his success in the cycling including 7 consecutive wins in the Tour de France world it is evident that hisbattle with cancer originated from excessive use of bicycles. 1.5. Application of soft systems methodology Since this system analysis involves the use of unique methodology, it will be important to employ a soft systems methodology approach in order to establish a more efficient problem solving mechanism. Soft system methodology basically refers to describing an unstructured problem from the viewpoints of different people. This is then used to develop abstract models of the system and using them (models) to distinguish varying necessities. From the research done about the highlighted areas of concern about the risk that the cyclists face, it was observed that several people had varying opinions about the same. These opinions were as follows: “I do not think that spectators pose any risk to the cyclists by being too close to them. This is a way of making the event more exciting because the short distance is the essence of live events whereby fans get up-close.” – Member of the Tour de France organising committee. “It is and has always been a risk. Sometimes when you ride past spectators who have placards protesting one thing or another about the race you become very afraid because you know anything can happen at any time. ” – Octave Garigou who is a French cyclist and participant of the Tour de France. 2. Unique systems based methodology This section of the SoSE methodology is going to focus on thelinks between the problem, the environment (problem context) and useful methods (unique methodology) that can be used to deal with the problem (Keating 12). This framework is best illustrated in the picture below. The unique methodology that will be employed will seek to solve the security threats facing the cyclists. The aims of this methodology will be to: Ensure that the riders are safe during the entire competition The security risks are well analysed and a high level design is constructed for the study. This should effectively support the objectives of the study An analytic strategy should be designed for a quality exploration of the problem. This involves collecting data and making decisions that are related to the SoS study. These aims are applied in the following specified categories. 2.1. Methodology on spectator risk The first problem in form of concern for rider security is the insecurity arising from the fans of the race. How the riders are protected from the fans is that they follow an enclosed road through which fans are barred from getting into by the security personnel that man these roads. This security measure is not enough since spectators have been known to cross the road with some of them even interfering with the race. The unique methodology that should be employed to look into this problem is the use of strict rules and regulations that work to prevent any form of interference from the spectators. This kind of interference is also a danger to the fans because some have been involved in accidents that terminated their own lives. So the interference of spectators is not only a threat to rider security but also to their own life. In some case some of the fans have thrown items to the cyclists. This especially goes unnoticed since the coverage of the cameras focuses on the cyclists and only momentarily focuses on the spectators. The unique methodology that should be used to counter check this security threat is the use of hidden cameras along the route of the race. The cameras should be hidden because if they are exposed they could be subject to vandalism.These cameras should focus on spectator behaviour. The coverage of one camera should end where the coverage of the next begins. In some instances some spectators do protest for example against the doping cases that are very common in the tour. These protests could prove catastrophic if they were to catch the attention of all the fans since it could lead to a stampede that would endanger everybody’s wellbeing. The unique methodology through which the problem can be solved is having the committee that oversees the proceedings of the tour address pressing issues emerging from the spectators and the cyclists alike. This could be in the form of suggestion box delivery of messages, hotline communication whereby an email address or even phone number is dedicated solely to address these issues. Additionally, a feedback that guarantees the solving of/dealing with the raised issues should be given. This is a method that will work to calm the nerves of the troubled spectators/riders. For example in the case of the doping protests the committee should see to it that they respond to the subjects that have raised these concerns and on top of that ask for suggestions on how to deal with the matter. They should also explain the identified mechanisms or that they are intending to employ in order to address these issues. As much as this may not be a permanent solution it will serve to reduce the unsatisfactory nature of some of the people (Hall 89). The reason as to why I have highlighted that it may not be a permanent solution is that there are people with solely malicious intents such that no matter what solution there is to offer their goals will always be to harm/destroy. In this case the “solution” will be type III errors whereby an effective solution is offered to the wrong problem. Intimidation by fans towardsan unpopular cyclist is also a risk to be considered. This is because during the course of the intimidation anything can happen including an attack. This however is one of the easier issues to solve since the presence of security personnel is emphasized here. On top of that the unfolding of such kind of dramatic events is fodder for the press who will highlight those moments. This serves to provide efficient coverage of security and evidence in case of an attack. The only catastrophe would occur when objects are thrown to the cyclist which may result in him being pulled out of the race all together. The unique methodology that can be used to solve this problem is the issuing of warnings prior to the beginning of each stage concerning the intimidation of a cyclist whenever this problem is encountered. This should also come along with the penalties that will be faced in case anyone is caught in the same (Ackoff, 52). 2.2. Methodology on risk from fellow cyclists The risk arising from fellow cyclists is one of the harder issues to solve. This is because any form of inter cyclist collisions is assumed to be an accident. This is due to the assumption that every cyclist is eyeing the ultimate prize hence no rider has any business interfering with another cyclists’ race. As suggested earlier through the use of spy cameras, it would be easier to highlight theseincidents and more so to come to an amicable conclusion of foul play or lack of it. These cameras can be used to decide whether accidents such as bicycle pile ups are intentional or just purely accidental. For example the incident whereby Lance Armstrong crashed into a bicycle pile up is difficult to dismiss it as being just an accident. This is especially because of his prominence in the field. To make matters worse he broke his collarbone which led to his retirement from the same. This scenario from a critical point of view can be interpreted as a set up that was aimed at killing the competition or reducing it. If cameras were used to capture the incident then more accurate assumptions would be made. However there is no use of hidden cameras at the instance. The use of cameras is also limited due to the fact that the race takes also place in the countryside and mountainous terrains whereby it would be senseless to install cameras. 2.3. Methodology on risk from hired personnel Threat from hired personnel though minimal is not to be ignored. This can be controlled by having their identity being scrutinised thoroughly. This should also entail looking into their professional and personal backgrounds. Unique identities such as thumbprints should also be part of the records about them. This is due to the fact that, were there to be a need for investigation of any form of suspicious activities then the investigations should single out whether it was an inside job or not. It will also be vital to lay out their duties and emphasize on the limitations of their duties,for instance informing them that they should not interact with the cyclists until they are authorized to do so. This however could lead to staged emergencies between cyclists and some of the hired personnel who are coordinating. Since cyclists belong to teams which are assisted by team patrons, there could be an underlying danger emerging from the team patrons especially if their loyalty is questionable. The unique methodology that can be used to counter check this problem is to have a detailed description of each of the team members. However this methodology can be breached by identity theft whereby someone could be masquerading as someone else. This can be counter checked by having strict checkup processes to ensure the real identity of the team members and patrons. 2.4. Methodology on risk from bicycles As stated earlier bicycles used in this tournament are made to enhance speed at the expense of the rider’s comfort or wellbeing. This is a major health hazard due to the fact bicycles are known to adversely affect rider’s health to the extent of causing cancerous cells. This is made even more critical by the fact that some bicycle manufacturers seize this opportunity to advertise their models. In this regard they make bicycles that are strictly speed enhanced because whenever a winner emerges riding on their bicycle models then that means more market for their bicycles. The methodology that can be used to counter check this problem is having regulatory measures that look into the models and how they cater for rider security. This measure may however be met by strong opposition from manufacturers who may not be willing to alter the designs of their products. The opposition may also be in form of cyclists who are only eyeing the prize and are not concerned about their well-being. 3. Methodology Application 3.1. Solutions used 3.1.1. Counter checking the risk of spectators Currently there are feeble methods that oversee the security of cyclists from possible threats from the crowds. The methodologiesthat we are going to employ include creating a larger distance between the spectators and the cyclists. In the past the spectators have been awfully close to the cyclists, even as close as touching distance. There have also been concerns about the accessibility by the spectators of the road. This is due to the fact that some spectators are victims of accidents that emancipate from them crossing the roads. The measures that have been established entail a 5 meter barrier between the edge of road and the spectators. That barrier is characterised by a free pathway that is manned by security personnel who are stationed at distances of 50meters apart. This barrier only covers the areas that have spectators. Areas without spectators such as the countryside and the mountainous places do not have barriers. The purpose of those barriers is to give the security personnel working space whereby they will be able to control the crowd from interfering with the cyclists. This is opposed to the former methods whereby the personnel were stationed along the road. 3.1.2. Inter-cyclist feud The installation of cameras along the course of the race is the most efficient method. These cameras are hidden and are sensitive to motion. As for the countryside we are relying on satellite images but this is hindered by routes that have a canopy of trees. Overtaking is the most monitored of inter cyclist feud. 3.1.3. Preventing the danger posed by hired personnel In order to avoid the risks that may originate from the hired personnel we separated the cyclists from the security put in charge whereby they will be manning from the barriers. This is a one stage solution since on the road there are other personnel such as the media personalities who record the proceedings of the race. This recording is in form of driving a distance ahead of the cyclists whereby the journalists are positioned at the back of the car. This however has been counter checked by making sure that the caravan of journalists that leads the cyclists is at least 50 meters ahead. This methodology will serve to make sure that the distance between the cyclists and any other personnel is maintained. There are also the team patrons who follow the cyclists belonging to their team all through the race course. These patrons are the only personnel who are authorised to use the barriers for movement. This is a way of reducing the congestion on the road by traffic that is not related to bicycles. 3.1.4. Danger from bicycles We have installed specific requirements that look into the issue of bicycles that are a threat to riders. We have put in place restriction on the boundary between comfort and speed. This is through the specification of: 1. Theallowed weight of the bicycle–a bicycle is not supposed to be less than 30 kilograms. Any bicycles with a weight that is less than that will be considered to be made of extremely delicate materials. 2. Size of the saddle – the seat should not be less than 5 cm at the tip and 15cm at the base. The length of the saddle should also not be more than 15 cm. 3. Materials used to make the bicycle–rims of the bicycles should strictly be made up of metallic materials. 4. Compulsory safety gadgets – helmets, elbow and knee covers are a must for each rider. The handle bars should also be lined so as to avoid slipping of hands. The pedals should be leather. 5. 3.2. Results 3.2.1. Barrier The barrier installed was highly opposed by the spectators some of whom claimed that the excitement of the race was lost since the distance created made the event less enjoyable. According to a 15 year old boy named Henri Pottier: “The racers are hardly visible giving in the need for binoculars. What do you need binoculars for in a live event...This is not a football match and even the football matches have a widescreen television whereby you can see all the action that you can’t see at the back of the stands because of the distance.” This however worked best to avoid spectators from recklessly crossing the road and which is a major way through which accidents in this event occur. It was also an improvement to de-congesting the road since the team patrons followed along the barrier. Unfortunately a new problem arose from this whereby the team patrons who are in pursuit of their team member in the race had to be extra vigilant due to the fact that the barrier had people in it. 3.2.2. Inter cyclists’ feud This was the easiest of methodologies to apply since it did not involve introducing new regulations that directly affected anyone (Adams 98). 3.2.3. Hired personnel As expected therewas opposition from members of staff due to the imposed distances but this was easier to deal with because it meant either following the rules or losing their jobs. 3.2.4. Bicycle regulations This was the most difficult change to implement. It had widespread opposition ranging from social media to the organisers. The phoenix company stated in their website that: “Due to the differences between the organisers of the Tour de France and us in the make and model of our bicycles we will no longer be sponsoring the event in the future. This is not to mean that our bicycles will not be used in the event. Anyone who desires to participate in the event using our bicycles is welcome to do so.” Popular Spanishcyclist;AlbertoContador who is also a onetime winner wrote in his twitter account that: “This race has been reduced to a safety racing event. It should be renamed Tour de Slow. Some of the bicycles recommended cannot even compete in a wheelbarrow race.” Due to the widespread opposition from all ventures thebicycle regulations we lifted the bicycle regulation. We however warned the cyclists of some of the adverse effects of unsafe riding (Flood,102). It was agreed that since these measures were put in place to cater for the rider security and they were well informed of the risks they faced it would be their decision to make on what bicycles to ride. The agreement also stated that they riders and their team patrons would change the designs of the bicycles as per the requirement of the cyclist. This agreement eased our responsibility as we were left with 3 rider security options to deal with. 3.3. Success vs. Failure The success and failures are as illustrated below. Problem faced Success Failure Spectators Managed to keep a barrier Dissatisfaction of spectators Inter cyclist feud Well monitored race progress None Hired Personnel Distance maintained Dissatisfaction of personnel Use of bicycles Agreement for personal modification of bicycles Overall regulatory system not achieved 4. Evaluation of a systems analysis effort Evaluation of a systems analysis refers to the examination of how the methodologies put in place modify the situation. The evaluation of a system analysis is best described by the following diagram: In this case the effort is the methodology we applied to solve the problem. The utility represents the failed solutions that we suggested and how we used them to form other decisions instead. The outcome stands for the overall result of the methodologies applied. The evaluation carried outis after completion of the effort. This aims at determining the outcomes that have been achieved. The results of the evaluation will not be used to modify the effort but will be a great tool for the modification of future SoSE systems (Reeves, 36). The evaluation proves that changing the current framework is not an easy task since the system that is already in place is what most of the people are used to. In addition having measures that control risky situations does not garner support as would be expected. This is evident through the massive opposition arising from trying to have the make and model of the bicycles specified. This shows that people will choose injury over safety as it was demonstrated. It has also been observed that changes in systems that affect multitudes are harder to implement. This is as observed in the case of the barrier and the specifications of the bicycles. Another point of observation is that changes that have little or no effect on how people cope are easiest to put in place. This observation is echoed by the installation of hidden motion sensitive cameras. There was no problem that arose from the procedure hence it was observed as the most successful methodology to be implemented. Bibliography Adams, Kennedy. SoSE Methodology. Norfolk, 2009. Checkland, Peter. Systems Thinking, Systems. Wiley, Chichester, 1999. Fabrycky, Simon Blanchard and Walter John. Systems Engineering and Analysis. New Jersey, 2006. Flood, Ricky. Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention. Wiley, New York, 1991. Gibbs, Jones. Lance Armstrong. 12 July 2012. 18 July 2012 . Keating, Charles B. Perspective 2 of the SoSE methodology: designing. n.d. Hall, Alex. Metasystems Methodology: A New Synthesis and Unification. Pergamon Press Oxford, 1989. Keating, Charles. “Framing of Complex System of Systems Engineering.” 2012. Reeves, H. Tour de France. 17 July 2012. 18 July 2012 . Ackoff, Richard. Creating the Corporate Future. New York, 1981. Keating, Kevin MacG. Adams and Charles B. Overview of the systems of systems engineering. Virginia, USA, 2 March 2011. Read More