Hmm...ok, since you ask so nicely (and hence apologies if some of these seem a bit negative, I will try to be constructive!):

1. I may be wrong, but: how many engineers / engineering managers know what is meant by "emergent properties"? I would suggest clarifying this. I'll be honest, I had to look it up to be sure (and it didn't mean quite what I thought it did!), and safety of complex systems is my field!
2. Managers' Objective 1, I do like, personally I might add "...with responsibility for ensuring that future stewards have all the information they need to continue managing the system safety". Ok, probably too many words for this, but really really important point to capture. 
3. Managers' Objective 2, absolutely, but there's (at least) two separate issues in here. I would most certainly pull out "prepare for low probability catastrophic risks" into its own Objective (or other clear statement) as it's SO important, and, in the context of this flyer, a key paradigm shift requirement for engineering managers not used to safety issues. Particularly those with a lot of experience of high reliability systems, who sometimes struggle to realise that systems with superb failure rates may still be many orders of magnitude away from acceptable safe failure rates.
4. Still on Objective 2, I suspect the word "sustainable" in the heading could cause confusion, I agree it is literally correct, but it is so much associated with environmental sustainability now that an alternative might be better - personally I usually somehow use the words "safety culture" in similar phrases, but that may not be the best phrasing either.
5. Similarly with Managers' Objective 3, I'm not sure "reality" really conveys the concept that's trying to be got across here? Perhaps something like "...a responsibility to nurture openness and accountability"?   
6. Engineers' Objective 2 - but the problem is that engineers DO "judge when understanding can turn into action", but get it wrong (too early or too late). So to be useful this object really needs to be more about using the full range of resources, including users and experts in all implications of the system, to ensure this judgement is made correctly. Probably most of us who work in independent assurance spend most of our time checking this judgement, engineers really need more guidance and support in how to achieve it.
7. Engineers' Objective 3 - Yes please!!!! But crucially I would add "...should UNDERSTAND and fully support..." 
8. I have no idea what Figure 1 is trying to convey. Sorry. I can see there was a good idea there, but I suspect it got tweaked a lot on the way to the final graphic design. (Ok, I can sort of work it out but that's not the point - a picture should instantly convey something, otherwise it might be better to use words.)
9. There is a tiny note on Figure 1 "Use teams. Promote diverse thinking." This is vital and should be given huge prominence. And further, teams must be wide ranging, representing anyone who might interface with or have expertise on the project. The major risk which this flyer doesn't seem to clearly pick up is engineers and engineering managers who "don't know what they don't know".
10. Figure 2 is correct, but is it useful? And surely it's true for all systems?

I spend a fair bit of my time these days supporting the type of people (individuals and organisations) who I think this flyer is aimed at: those who previously worked on "simple" (let's say broadly understood by a single engineer) systems and are now moving into complex systems, and those who have previously worked on complex systems with no safety impact and are now applying those systems in ways that have a safety impact. And sometimes both. Would I say "put this up on your office wall, your team might find it helpful"?  Not right now because of those points above.

BUT it's a REALLY good idea, so despite all the comments above thanks to those who've worked hard on this, it covers some really important areas which really are not well understood and appreciated, so perhaps a mk 2??? As it says "Prepare for the next project, learn for the future"!

Thanks,

Andy

Hmm...ok, since you ask so nicely (and hence apologies if some of these seem a bit negative, I will try to be constructive!):

1. I may be wrong, but: how many engineers / engineering managers know what is meant by "emergent properties"? I would suggest clarifying this. I'll be honest, I had to look it up to be sure (and it didn't mean quite what I thought it did!), and safety of complex systems is my field!
2. Managers' Objective 1, I do like, personally I might add "...with responsibility for ensuring that future stewards have all the information they need to continue managing the system safety". Ok, probably too many words for this, but really really important point to capture. 
3. Managers' Objective 2, absolutely, but there's (at least) two separate issues in here. I would most certainly pull out "prepare for low probability catastrophic risks" into its own Objective (or other clear statement) as it's SO important, and, in the context of this flyer, a key paradigm shift requirement for engineering managers not used to safety issues. Particularly those with a lot of experience of high reliability systems, who sometimes struggle to realise that systems with superb failure rates may still be many orders of magnitude away from acceptable safe failure rates.
4. Still on Objective 2, I suspect the word "sustainable" in the heading could cause confusion, I agree it is literally correct, but it is so much associated with environmental sustainability now that an alternative might be better - personally I usually somehow use the words "safety culture" in similar phrases, but that may not be the best phrasing either.
5. Similarly with Managers' Objective 3, I'm not sure "reality" really conveys the concept that's trying to be got across here? Perhaps something like "...a responsibility to nurture openness and accountability"?   
6. Engineers' Objective 2 - but the problem is that engineers DO "judge when understanding can turn into action", but get it wrong (too early or too late). So to be useful this object really needs to be more about using the full range of resources, including users and experts in all implications of the system, to ensure this judgement is made correctly. Probably most of us who work in independent assurance spend most of our time checking this judgement, engineers really need more guidance and support in how to achieve it.
7. Engineers' Objective 3 - Yes please!!!! But crucially I would add "...should UNDERSTAND and fully support..." 
8. I have no idea what Figure 1 is trying to convey. Sorry. I can see there was a good idea there, but I suspect it got tweaked a lot on the way to the final graphic design. (Ok, I can sort of work it out but that's not the point - a picture should instantly convey something, otherwise it might be better to use words.)
9. There is a tiny note on Figure 1 "Use teams. Promote diverse thinking." This is vital and should be given huge prominence. And further, teams must be wide ranging, representing anyone who might interface with or have expertise on the project. The major risk which this flyer doesn't seem to clearly pick up is engineers and engineering managers who "don't know what they don't know".
10. Figure 2 is correct, but is it useful? And surely it's true for all systems?

I spend a fair bit of my time these days supporting the type of people (individuals and organisations) who I think this flyer is aimed at: those who previously worked on "simple" (let's say broadly understood by a single engineer) systems and are now moving into complex systems, and those who have previously worked on complex systems with no safety impact and are now applying those systems in ways that have a safety impact. And sometimes both. Would I say "put this up on your office wall, your team might find it helpful"?  Not right now because of those points above.

BUT it's a REALLY good idea, so despite all the comments above thanks to those who've worked hard on this, it covers some really important areas which really are not well understood and appreciated, so perhaps a mk 2??? As it says "Prepare for the next project, learn for the future"!

Thanks,

Andy

I find it hugely difficult to say much useful. I know personally two people on the Engineering Safety PP, whom I assume contributed (One is on a mailing list I run, on which I distributed the link to the flyer, but little traffic so far.) I have my difficulties with general vague feelgood statements, but agree that it is good to inform people of things of which they might be unaware. This is about management. I am not sure what the needs are that the Panel think they are addressing. I do know that a main issue with complex systems, and with people coming from simple systems to complex heterogeneous systems, is the HRA. I would support keeping on top of that (and keeping it well maintained), because doing it for complex systems is a world different from doing it for simple systems, but there is no word about it in the flyer. 

Andy, thank you very much for your comments.  As the IET Engineering Safety Policy Panel Lead, I am going to refer all the points raised, and the rest of the thread, to the group of volunteers that have compiled this 2-pager.  It is very much a 'starter for 10' - the intention has always been to supplement this document with a more substantial paper that delves more into its intricacies, and then to promote discussion on the topic amongst engineering communities.  We have already started work on that more detailed paper.  If you want to get more involved in shaping this work - and this equally applies to others adding their comments - do get in touch with me directly at arylah@theiet.org.