Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Frederick George Robotham
Something that is ingrained in the safety world in Australia and I suspect the world is risk assessment.With my last 3 employers I have developed a 4 hour Hazard Identification / Risk Assessment /Hazard Control course , trained risk assessment teams and helped them to carry out risk assessments on high risk tasks.One of the most respected safety consultants in Australia says risk assessment is a load of garbage,he says the theory is fine but where it falls down in practice is that peoples perception on probability and consequence and thus the risk varies with their previous experience with this type of risk,risk scores are thus variable, results are neither valid nor relable and the methd is thus unscientific.My experience is that there is often a lot of variability between individuals and teams when it comes to developing risk scores.I have always been of the belief that what you do to control risk as the result of a risk assessment process is more important than the risk score.
I would be interested to hear about the U.K. experience with risk assessment.
George Robotham
Brisbane Australia
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jane Blunt
I am sure this thread is going to develop into a very lively debate. I believe that all the points of view you have mentioned have a lot of good sound points.
If you research into the perception of risk you will find that people assess risks from things with which they are familiar, and especially those things that they have control over, as much lower than things that they are not familiar with, especially if it is a risk you cannot see. So they will rate crossing the road as trivial compared to dying from a disease due to radiation.
For many situations we do not have the data on which we can reliably place a numerical risk assessment. However, for some we have, so that, for instance we can calculate the probability of a failure of a succession of mechanical devices, if we know the reliability data for them.
I believe, nevertheless, that risk assessment is a very valuable tool. Taken at the level where we demand that people go through the process of planning what they are going to do, thinking about all the aspects of the work that could lead to a danger of injury (including the possibility that something might go wrong with the process), and then thinking carefully about how they can prevent the incidents that can cause injury from happening, or at least minimising their impacts.
Because I work in a research environment, I tend to discourage numerical risk assessment, but instead encourage people to think of 'what ifs'.
I will now put my flameproof hard hat on, to await the continuing debate.
Jane
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Mackessack
G'day George,
Risk Assessment is not an exact science and is open to variation. Funnily enough, the incidents and losses we are trying to prevent do not conform to an exact scientific formula either.
Appropriate control measures are indeed the key and desired outcome but how you arrive and prioritise them is the issue.
This fact is pretty well recognised. The question that most of us try to answer when advising & assisting with risk assessment is "what is suitable and sufficient?".
In other words, are we using the correct level of competency to perform the risk assessment, are we using a consistent approach, are we identifying and dealing with the forseeable outcomes adequately.
In addition, there are many different approaches in methodology and selecting the closest fit is crucial - do you go for a numeric assessment or a simple 'low','medium' or 'high' rating system. Having the where-with-all to adjust the method to suit the job or area rather than bashing on with an awkward standard form is also key, in my opinion.
Risk assessment is not flawless, but given the right concentration of effort and depth, and isn't treated as a purely bureacratic exercise, it works.
It's interesting that you haven't mentioned whether this consultant suggests an alternative to risk assessment. I for one would love to see it. In the meantime, we all have to strive for the perhaps mythical destination that is Risk Assessment Nirvana!
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Allan St.John Holt
I agree entirely with Jane. Putting numbers on risk assessments is dangerous because people (engineers especially) love numbers, think they're meaningful and want to manipulate them. I've even seen a set of standard deviations worked out for a package of assessments. They are only useful as an indication for the ranking purposes, in my opinion. I'm quite happy with the idea of classing risks as insignificant, low, medium and high, simply because most of us can agree on which pigeon hole to use when marked like that.
But the whole point of risk assessment is that it makes you think about issues which might otherwise be accepted as a business risk - 'we've always done that', or at least 'we've always done it that way in this trade'. Without some kind of documented review you can't show that a proper review has taken place, and that 'shows the working'.
Not that there aren't problems with risk assessment. Foremost among them, there is an assumption that anyone can do them. It does require a modest amount of explanation to the newcomer. In small businesses especially there is a great temptation to use generic assessments without site-specific modification, and then park the material in the file cabinet. I think that's largely why it's unpopular in some professional quarters - a principle easy to misuse, misapply or whatever.
However, I think we need to concentrate as professionals on helping managers to do risk assessments, not doing them for them. That means having a system which is simple, powerful and workable. but if its's got numbers in it, warn of the dangers inherent! Numbers are not good at handling OH risks, for example.
Like Jane says, I think you're going to start a long thread with this one!
Allan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
I agree with the above sentiments with regards to RA process and a lot of employers are 'doing them' because the law says so, what is really at the heart of the problem is 'Management of Risk' and what the Top Management do about RA outcomes, either act on the findings or do nothing (or somewhere between), which are RM decisions, we as safety professionals can and should try and influence those decisions but this is a business decision just like any other 'management' decision and we have to fight our safety corner usually against the bean counters.
Its easy to do things which are required by statute but what about doing the things which are industry best practice or nice to have etc especially with economic downturn.
If there is 'no buy in' from MD/CEO or management then the RA process / procedures may not be worthwhile irrespective of the type of RA.
Its all very well H&S theologists bestowing the virtues of RA but in the 'commercial' world things are quite diffirent and decisions about 'capital spend' are not purely judged on 'safety measures' if they were life would be simple.
The good thing about a 'figures' based RA is that it takes away the decision making as long as management agree what actions are needed, AND ACT ACCORDINGLY!, depending on the 'box' the outcomes go into, thinking about it thats the same for any type of RA.
The difficulty is defining those parameters and getting agreement!
What is an acceptable risk to one employer may not be to another and even between members of a board!
Anyone can have a great system for RA and have loads of boxes, numbers, diagrams and colour charts etc but if the boss says no then no it usually is, bring on Corporate Killing!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Barry Mageean
A great topic for debate George.
I admit being bewildered at times by the approach taken by some people to Risk Assessment. I have couple of particular bees in my bonnet that I would be happy to share.
Firstly, generic assessment packages that promise 'one size fits all'. They often take a degree to decipher for even relatively simple tasks and the person spends more time generating reams of paper rather than looking at what really the problems are.
Secondly, I generally find numerical rating of assessments is more helpful for those with a lack of understanding of the Risk Assessment process. The important decisions are not so much what way to rate as so whether the controls are adequate to reduce the risk of injury / ill health to as low a level as is reasonably practicable. Over reliance on numerical data can lead to a concentration on higher scored risks to the detriment of some simple measures that could impact on the lower scored risks.
Finally, I disagree wholeheartedly with the statement that Risk Assessment is a 'load of garbage'. What can give Risk Assessment bad press is over reliance on fancy packages and methodologies that someone in a cosy office has dreamt up. The thought process and creative juices that Risk Assessment encourages is its beauty - not numerical calculations that are unnecessary for all but the most complex of processes.
I look forward to other replies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Martyn Hendrie
For me the key to the requirement with risk assessment lies in the requirement for them to be "suitable and sufficient"
Suitable, in that the relevant hazards have been identified; sufficient in that each hazard has been assessed and appropriate risk elimination/ reduction/ control measures have been put in place.
Of course the person(s) carrying out the assessment must be competent to make the assessment and their selection is a vital part of the process.
Risk assessment is not the "holy grail" but, it is a useful tool.
I agree with Alan about using numerical systems. I have seen a number of examples where an unlikely possibility of a fatality was considered acceptable simply because it did not merit a large enough numerical score.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By AlanB
George, Nice to respond to you on this forum as well as the SIA!
I notice (certainly in my place of work) that many people seem to miss the whole relevance of a risk assessment. You are right, the risk score is based on opinion, and this can most definitely be a dangerous approach. But if sufficiently competent people undertake the risk assessment, then the whole personal opinion on the hazards and their associated risks gets increasingly phased out by the power of multiple opinions.
My largest concerns are that at my place of work, some managers will not carry out any work unless there is a risk assessment in place. But once one has been carried out, they are happy to start work, but ignore all of the corrective actions required to reduce the risk!! To some, it is still a case of there being a risk assessment - not a safe place of work. They just totally miss the point. It then comes down to understanding and the changing of culture, which is a lengthy process. It certainly is not an easy situation, but it does highlight the need for everybody to buy into risk assessments.
As for the rating of risks by likelihood and severity, I think it is a vital tool. Not to show how severe a risk is, but to be able to determine a plan of action in a prioritised manner, tackling it in a logical, systematic way.
Whereas training is a vital tool in developing understanding of risk assessments, there are still some occasions where people are not buying into it. And that is a HUGE problem!!
Alan Bate
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Lucas
Interesting thread this.
In my experience, regardless of what system or process is used, whether it be numerical or simply High, Med or Low, the biggest contribution I find to its failure is those completing the Risk Assessmnmet not involving the right people, e.g. those individuals actually carrying out the work/hazardous activity.
This can obviously lead to poor communication and a failure to "sign on" to the process.
Regards
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Watson
Dear All,
I believe that there are a number of points about risk assessments:
1. Risk assessments are valuable if carried out in a systematic manner by people who understand the work activity and the risk assessment process and its limitations. Risk assessments are just "assessments". They are not scientific tools but a methodological and systematic approach to identifying the preventative and control measures necessary to eliminate or minimise risk.
2. Risk assessments are a waste of time if they are not done properly or if the findings are not incorporated into safe systems of work. The majority of risk assessments fail because they aren't implemented or because they are flawed in that they concentrate on "things" such as machines and activities, but not events, such as breakdowns, spillages, blockages, all of which will occur at some time or another and give an increased risk of ill health or injury.
3. The bureaucracy surrounding risk assessments does nothing but to distract attention from the value and purpose of risk assessments, and reduces risk assessments as something you have to do to 'comply with the law'.
Regards Adrian Watson.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Geoff Burt
I endorse everything said so far on this thread and with a couple of extras!
I firmly believe that Risk Assessment is the foundation stone/block of H&S (when I came into H&S they said that about the H&S Policy)and I still cannot understand why it took until COSHH in 1989 to legally bring risk assessment about as a recognised and essential tool. And why it took until the 92 regs to insist on them in the workplace.
Of course there are failings. If we are dealing with people there are bound to be. Just note the number of differences of opinion on this forum alone. But if the guy is not happy with the way its done at the moment - put up an alternative method.
Comment about generic assessment is absolutely right - no matter how you stress to clients the need to adapt them to the specific circumstances, it just doesn't get done.
However, the biggest failing is that risk assessments very often don't get to the people at risk. They sit on the managers desk - sometimes because there are some outstanding control measures to be implemented and the reluctance to admit it, and sometimes because it is not just not accepted they need to spend some money to put things 'right' and, sometimes it is indifference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Des Daly
Interesting thread this.
The variability of the outcome of Risk Assessments should not be unexpected - however concerning they may be. I think that the crux of the issue is far deeper than just the ability of the Risk Assessor to predict an outcome and adjust this outcome by applying reason. The problem, I believe, lies in the idea that Risk Assessments can be scientifcally determined. ( Incidently the idea of an activity being a 'non exact' science is a meaningless concept). Thus Science in the natural world is able to predict such things as Lunar eclipses -early stage of civilisation, to global warming - advanced stage of civilisation) but can this type scientific reasoning be applied to human behaviour? The reasoning that 'if X takes place then Y will take place' ( conditional scientific predictions) can be false when applied to unconditonal scientific predictions such as 'Y will take place'. Therefore a risk assessment carried out using a conditional science ( logic, antecedents, prior experience,) may not be able to identify the random event ( an unconditonal scientific event). Karl Popper ( Conjectures and Refutations) identiifed, this contradicition between the reasoning applied to the Natural and Social Sciences and asserted that 'The fact that we can predict eclipses does not therefore, provide a valid reason for expecting that we can predict revolutions ( a non natural event).
Can't remember what point I was trying to make now...must be in need of a long break.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Geoff Burt
Very interesting Des - but you've lost me!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Joel Benham
I agree with all that has been said so far. From a practical point of view, though, could you not overcome the problems of risk perception (at least in part) by:
1 Listing the hazards, identifying the legal minimum standards / best practice for each hazard, and judging the residual risks. These residual risks will, of course, be subjective, but at least all the main hazards are being controlled to some extent.
Or
2. Listing the hazards, identifying the legal minimum standards / best practice ( compare these to existing circumstances - this could be where perception problems come in again, though) and judging the risks before putting in place further controls.
The company safety manual could have simple control guidance sheets for each of the main hazards for the particular industry, based on minimum legal standards or best practice.If these are written clearly enough (if need be with pictograms / diagrams), and are not too long, it should be easier to compare against existing standards. These could be read before making the judgements, and might help to take away some of the perception problems.
It's just a thought....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Lucas
Yes Des I think I understand... are you having a tough week?
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jim Sweetman
A very interesting thread on a fundamental, but sadly maligned, topic. What is very reassuring is the amount of agreement so far - hardened veterans of this forum will have experience of some of the catfights on other threads.
However, I digress. The discussion of number (quantitative) v. H, M or L (qualitative)is close to heart. My present role is Risk Management (I moved out of pure H&S a few months ago)where the onus is to put figures against risk such that you can predict specific costs against a project. It certainly focusses someone's attention if they realise that they have to deal with a specific cost. Before I get my head chewed off, I must say that it's a lot easier to quantify a financial, or equipment, risk rather than a H&S risk. To be as specific for the cost of an injury or fatality is obviously next to impossible - I'll leave someone else to develop that.
One message that I have picked up on a number of occasions from Risk Management sources is that HML is considered to be of little or no use as it is not specific enough to be able to advise management. I mention this because H&S practitioners are talking to the same management as the Risk Managers - management may be getting a conflicting message.
On a reassuring note, there's a lot of 'buzz' about Risk Management in the Public Sector, but when you scratch the surface there is very little beneath. H&S is established and is backed by legislation so there is definite substance, in comparison.
My personal experience with risk assessment is that there is a problem of terminology, as another respondent alluded to. When you talk of Risk, or Risk Assessment, people dive for cover! If you refer to plans, 'making an arrangement' or 'looking at things', or similar, the response tends to be more positive.
Someone referred to an assessment being suitable and sufficient (quite rightly so), but there has also been a number of references to generics (horror!!!), but few people refer to the second part of MHSWR Reg 3 which refers to 'identifying the measures..to take..to comply ...statutory provision'. Use that as a measure for identifying suitability and sufficiency!
People make a great play of recording (!) their findings, i.e. the generic RA sheets, but relatively few actually (!!) make the assessment.
Hope my thoughts are of use. I'll sign off now as I seem to have rambled on for a bit.
Regards
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Des Daly
Yes Ken it has been a tough week and as our annual Christmas 'do 'nears ever closer I am mentally preparing myself for the good old chestnut comment of ' Have you done a risk assessment for this food/place/ your wild dancing/ best lurex socks etc?'.
Has anyone got any good ripostes apart from my stock favourite ' Why are you concerning yourself with Risk Assessments now when you haven't all year'. Ohhh!!!! bit of a wicked tongue on me when aroused. Anyone for a Port and Lemon?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Lucas
Have a pint of John Smiths Des and try the "no nonsense" approach.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
Good thread this, with a lot of commonsense analyses of the current uk/australian situation. I think the thread should be preserved as a study chapter for nebosh students.
As some of you know, I work in france and am better versed in french legislation than uk, and have absolutely no knowledge of the australian situation.
Stemming from the same european legislation, we started doing risk assessments and safety plans for on-site contractors (NOT for employees)in 1992. Most companies use a long list of possible risks - working at height, falling objects, welding ... and so on, and tick the appropriate boxes. Then there is a long listen of "suitable" safety measures - again check the appropriate boxes. After 10 or 12 years it seems to work fairly well. Contractors are used to it and usually have the required safety gear. Ex :Contractor owned or leased Nacelles (cherry pickers)have mostly replaced ladders and scaffolding, making high work faster and safer. The assessment and safety plan should be developed between the two companies before the work starts and must be reviewed with the actual workers when they come on site. Supervision/audit by management AND union safety reps is included in the plan.
As for your employees : routine tasks, like running a lathe or a press all day long must be analysed, safe method of work prepared and employees trained to work safely. Non routine jobs were not covered. (ask two guys to take a table upstairs - in the uk a RA would be appropriate)
HOWEVER, still following on from the same EU legislation, French employers have recently been required to analyse ALL risks to which employees are exposed, to compile the results in a single document and bring that document to the attention of employees, unions and the factory inspector. (as a consulting company that asbestos cases - employers knew the brought us some good business from small local companies who did not have the expertise and had the sense to call on someone who did). There is no requirement in that legislation to require a safety plan to deal with those risks. HOWEVER, employers were heavily reminded of simultaneous legislation and jurisprudence putting absolute blame, civil and criminal, on the employer. If a risk is identified and someone is subsequently injured, the employer is totally responsible. NO EXCUSES. Not even "reasonably practicable" or "economically viable". It is the result that counts. (this has its roots in risks and still put people at risk)
An 'orrible warning to uk employers - here, when an accident happens they go for the throat of the company and of EVERY individual who could have shared responsibility for the accident. And they do their own "fault tree analysis" to develop who to blame. They are not only looking at "corporate responsibility, they are looking at YOU
Merry Christmas
Merv Newman
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
due to a blip in the web site, part of my posting was garbled. I tried to say that "the current "no excuses" situation stems from asbestos cases, where employers were proved to have known the risks but continued to expose employees"
sorry about that, I will complain to the web master
Merv Newman
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By William O'Donnell
Very interesting 'Thread'. I feel that at times the responses have become bogged down with the methodology, rather than addressing the purpose.
Assessments are about control, about forseeing potential problems and acting to prevent or minimise possible consequences. This is just 'good business'and should be used to demonstrate the real, tangible, benefits of a positive safety culture.
Employers would not dream of having no action plan for any other aspect of their business, why then should it be acceptable with regards to health & safety.
Risk assessments allow employers to individualise their arrangements to fit their particular environment and undertakings, rather than having to comply with descriptive legislation which attempts to make a 'one size fits all' duty.
Describing assessments as 'garbage' shows a poor understanding of the advantages to be gained by taking a systematic approach to controlling risks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Geoff Burt
William
You wrote
'Risk assessments allow employers to individualise their arrangements to fit their particular environment and undertakings, rather than having to comply with descriptive legislation which attempts to make a 'one size fits all' duty.'
Whilst I see what you are getting at and the first part is absolutely right I would query
'rather than having to comply with descriptive legislation which attempts to make a 'one size fits all' duty.'
In general (and with some notable exceptions) the trend is away from 'prescriptive' (I assume that's what you mean) legislation but we do have to comply with what there is. Risk assessments still have to take the law into account whilst fitting the arrangements to the 'undertaking'- they are not an alternative way of complying.
Geoff
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By AlanB
George, once again you have started an interesting and responsive thread. I look forward to reading your conclusions in time! (By the way, your last batch of papers was excellent and very interesting to read!)
In response to Geoff Burt comments about the risk assessments not being communicated, I want to say that we ensure that all risk assessments are distributed to each employee who may be affected by the hazards, and ensure that they read and sign the assessments as an additional training measure. We have had very positive response from a number of external auditors on our approach to this.
HOWEVER, this is also one of the failings of our system. The people that actually have the power to ensure its success (the managers) believe that the risk assessments are there as a training tool, and they are not used as part of the approach of reducing actual risks. They believe that once the employee has been made aware of the risk, then their job is over. It is a problem that I am currently attempting to overcome. But it all comes down to the importance of everybody being fully aware of the role of a risk assessment, and then they must buy into it.
Culture change here we come.........
Alan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Frederick George Robotham
Since I started this thread I think it fair to say there is a lot of support out there for the risk assessment process but people recognise it is not an exact science.I have read some of the work of the safety consultant who questions the value of risk assessment and I think I understand where he is coming from.I will send him an e-mail tomorrow to clarify and will report back to you probably in the New Year.I think the thrust of his argument is that there are better ways of predicting future personal damage than using risk assessment
Regards,
George Robotham
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By chris beezer
I have always found the quote below from a speech in 1995 by John Rimmington, (one time Director General of the HSE) helpful in putting into perspective the legal requirement for written records of the findings of risk assessments.
“The Community’s 3rd health and safety action programme (1988) included the six major new worker protection directives which became the “Six pack” in January 1993. During the very hurried negotiations on the framework directive, the UK found itself in a collapsing minority in defence of its main principle - that health and safety law should be founded on reasonable practicability, involving a balancing of cost against risk. We contrived to substitute for it the principle which we consider equivalent - that health and safety measures should be based on an assessment of risk. Unfortunately in the course of negotiations, our proposals became amplified into a decision in favour of written risk assessments applying on a very wide scale. I believe written risk assessment to be a useful discipline so long as it is strictly confined to important risks; but applied too widely it can easily become bureaucratic bindweed preventing small firms in particular from seeing and doing the obvious.”
I feel that his fears were realised and that the requirement for written records of risk assessments has become a "bureaucratic bindweed". We have been carrying out risk assessments since at least 1974, if not before - it is the only way to determine what is reasonably practicable - but we did not have to record the "significant findings" until 1993. Instead we got on with devising appropriate safe working practices. UK health and safety legislation did not need Regulation 3 of the management regulations and it has done little, if anything, to improve standards of health and safety in the UK.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Geoff Burt
Chris
I would dispute your last statement absolutely.
Risk assessments have had a huge effect on the workplace and most of it positive.
When we carry out assessments we invariably recommend a number of improvements in current systems. Obviously some are more important than others but all provide a safer place of work/activity.
What we can't measure is the reduction in incidents/accidents and following from that reduced business costs.
That may be the major failure - to be able to prove safety works.
Of course there may be another side to the coin. In the Telegraph this morning it reports the number of people working in manufacturing is at its lowest level ever.
Possibly that accounts for the reducing number of casualties - and nothing to do with us!
Geoff
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By chris beezer
We must not lose sight of where the requirement for formally documented risk assessments came from. It was not because it was identified as a way of improving health and safety standards. It was a ploy by the UK to try to try to retain the concept of reasonable practicability in the negotiations with the other countries in the European Union. Without Regulation 3 of MHSWR we would have carried on as we had been doing since 1974 – working out where the balance was between risk and cost and making recommendations for improvements to provide a safer place of work/activity based on what was reasonably practicable (i.e carrying out risk assessments).
What Regulation 3 did was to add an extra, and in my view unnecessary, step to record the “significant findings” of the risk assessment. (The requirement to carry out a risk assessment was already implied in s2 and s3 of HASWA and the requirement of s2(3) to produce a written statement of arrangements for carrying out a health and safety policy already generated sufficient documentation.)
My view is that Regulation 3 has probably been detrimental to health and safety in this country as it has resulted in many people getting involved, usually unnecessarily, in semi-quantitative risk assessment and spending time filling in forms. The HSE could have done much more to have prevented this wasted effort with better guidance to accompany Regulation 3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.