Method Functional Safety
Group Home About us Contact us Terms & Policies
 +44 (0)1462 713313  support@methodfs.com

SIS Hardware Design to IEC 61511

What our delegates said...

The Solution =Method

Spread of delegate scores

Data taken from last 50 results

90 - 100%
80 - 90%
70 - 80%
60 - 70%
50 - 60%
40 - 50%
30 - 40%
20 - 30%
10 - 20%
0 - 10%
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

Delegate rating of this course

Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 0.0%
Live Online June 2026 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 90.0%
Live Online June 2026 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 90.0%
Live Online June 2026 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 91.7%
Live Online June 2026 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 90.0%
Live Online June 2026 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 82.0%
Live Online June 2026 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 81.5%
Live Online February 2026 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 90.0%
Live Online February 2026 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 82.5%
Live Online February 2026 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 81.7%
Live Online February 2026 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 85.0%
Live Online February 2026 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 81.0%
Live Online February 2026 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 80.0%
Live Online February 2026 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 79.3%
Live Online February 2026 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 79.4%
Live Online February 2026 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 81.1%
Live Online January 2025 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 70.0%
Live Online January 2025 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 77.5%
Live Online January 2025 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 81.7%
Live Online January 2025 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 67.5%
Live Online February 2023 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 70.0%
Live Online February 2023 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 85.0%
Live Online February 2023 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 83.3%
Live Online February 2023 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 79.3%
Birmingham November 2019 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 90.0%
Birmingham November 2019 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 82.5%
Birmingham November 2019 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 81.7%
Birmingham November 2019 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 78.8%
Birmingham November 2019 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 77.0%
Birmingham November 2019 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 75.0%
Grimsby February 2019 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 70.0%
Grimsby February 2019 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 80.0%
Grimsby February 2019 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 85.0%
Grimsby February 2019 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 87.5%
Grimsby February 2019 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 89.0%
Grimsby February 2019 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 90.8%
Grimsby February 2019 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 90.7%
Grimsby February 2019 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 90.0%
Dunfermline December 2018 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 100.0%
Dunfermline December 2018 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 99.0%
Dunfermline December 2018 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 98.7%
Dunfermline December 2018 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 97.8%
Dunfermline December 2018 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 97.8%
Dunfermline December 2018 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 95.7%
Dunfermline December 2018 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 95.6%
Hitchin June 2018 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 90.0%
Hitchin June 2018 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 92.5%
Hitchin June 2018 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 86.7%
Hitchin June 2018 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 88.8%
Hitchin June 2018 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 87.0%
Hitchin June 2018 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 88.3%
Hitchin June 2018 Delegate Rating Average Delegate Rating : 89.3%

We asked our delegates what they would say to anyone thinking of attending this course:

Good course delivered by a knowledgeable trainer.

It's what i need to do and how i need to do it.

Very useful to those with an existing understanding of the subject.

Overall the trainer was excellent

It was good to understand that I'm not too far away from where I should be in my understanding.

Essential for understanding SIL calculations by understanding what is acceptable to extrapolate.

I would recommend it to anyone. A good knowledge of 61511 and 61508 needed. Ideally the Method course.

Highly recommended.

Good for developing audit capabilities.

Course was a useful refresher and good opportunity for questions.

Very worthwhile, enhanced my understanding of a life-cycle topic I have very little experience in.

I feel more confident with SIS design and it has shown me what areas are important.

I would highly recommend, not only this course but any Method course. The team is always very knowledgeable and caring about the usefulness of what is being covered to the people attending.

I really had the feeling that I wouldn't be getting better quality or level of expertise in any other training environment.

Bring some examples of practical problems found within your project. Copies of bad certs and establish why you have chosen the device.

Good exchange of ideas, going forward a new basis for me.

Slightly improved, raised confidence, re-inforced/reminded on some aspects.

A very worthwhile course—clear and directly applicable to real SIL verification and PFD work.

Learnt about various approaches, CASS templates and how to apply the skills in my role.

Have good background knowledge of difficult examples you have encountered to bring to the table.