Posted By fgrobotham Risk assessment is accepted without question in Australia as an appropriate way forward for preventing personal damage occurrences (" Accidents") After a lot of research I am writing a paper that questions the effectiveness of risk assessment and suggests a new way forward. To assist in the balance of the paper I would appreciate if you could advise the following in relation to risk assessment in the U.K. 1 How widespread the use of risk assessment is. 2 Your positive and negative experiences with risk assessment 3 Your views on the strengths and weaknesses of risk assessment. Regards, George Robotham Brisbane Australia

Posted By fgrobotham Thanks for that Ray,I also see some problems with Risk Assessment What is a SSoW?Not familiar with that terminology over here where it is only a local call to Heaven Regards, George Robotham Brisbane Australia

Posted By Phil Rose This one could run for ever, and you will probably get many responses with many different opinions, and never the twain shall meet. As far as I am concerned RA is often used as an end in itself (often mere compliance with the legal requirement to carry it out) rather than a means to an end, which in my mind is to identify precautions and controls in order to MANAGE risks.

Posted By Peter Still Frank, In an ideal world, an SSoW would not be part of a risk assessment, it would be part of a risk reduction plan and would take a lower priority than elimination of hazards and safeguarding. Assessment is just that, and often the inclusion of risk reduction planning in an RA can lead to the RA being seen as an end in itself, rather than as one step in a process. The purpose of risk assessment is to assess the risks associated with a task, process, machine, etc, in order that appropriate measures can be put in place to reduce those risks. On a different slant, I believe that in many if not all cases the risk assessment should be perfomed relative to the RA for doing nothing; for example, playing conkers might carry some risk of injury, but not playing conkers carries the certainty of reduced social interaction as well as the loss of other benefits. The harm might be small, but the probability is much greater. School swimming lessons carry a small risk of drowning, but banning swimming lessons would result in many more drownings. Peter

Posted By FAH Many thanks for reading my offerings Peter. However, I fear that I failed to properly clarify my point; so I'll try again. I was not inferring that the SSoW was a part of the RA; I mistakenly thought that I was making it clear that the SSoW HAS to follow on from the RA as the means by which we attempt to adequately control the identified hazards. In the main, I agree with the majority of your points, although I find that making the potential victims think it through in [sometimes extremely] simple terms pays dividends by making it real to them rather than a paper, back-covering exercise [how it's frequently seen]. My approach to explaining RA [and the consequential essential SSoW] in the workplace is generally based upon actually asking the potential victims [yeah, you've got to talk to them without being condescending folks]the following:- Just what could go wrong [in the activity under consideration]?; Just how bad could it realistically be? What do you think we should do to reduce it happening? What do you think we could do to reduce the consequences? How should we make sure that's what happens [SSoW]? Could anything still go wrong? If anything is identified as being able to seriously go wrong, what should we have in place before we begin [Emerg Procedure]? I know that the above isn't perfect, but it's only an abbreviated version. Frank Hallett

Posted By FAH Forgive us please folks - we're chasing a dragon here. OK Peter, I understand your point. However, I may wish to argue that the inherent SSoW required in the case you identify would be to ensure that no-one reintroduced the banned or excluded substances/method of work/materials etc. I would normally refer to it a the essential control measure, but I was attempting to make my answer as readable as possible to the widest audience [is that lazy journalism or editing?] Frank Hallett

Posted By Andy Brazier Back to the original questions Q1. How widespread the use of risk assessment is. A1. Very. It is a legal requirement for all companies, and those employing 5 or more have to record significant findings. I doubt there is anyone in work in the UK who has not heard the term 'risk assessment.' Even those that have not worked for years will have heard many stories in the press relating (sometimes quite spuriously) to risk assessment Q2. Your positive and negative experiences with risk assessment A2 - Positive. I think the whole principle of risk assessment has provided the opportunity to discuss what matters to individuals and society. Our regulator (Health and Safety Executive) uses it to promote sensible safety and it has allowed us to move away from overly prescriptive regulations A2 - Negative. Whilst lots of people claim to do risk assessment, the vast majority fall well short of the requirement. Many are actually an assessment of hazards or summary of regulatory requirements, and fail to evaluate the overall risk or consider whether it is acceptable. In many cases it has become a bureaucratic exercise, with paperwork required to get the job done or to use as an excuse to not do something. Many people seem to miss the point that a risk assessment is a process to follow to get the job done safely and not a bit of paper. Q3. Your views on the strengths and weaknesses of risk assessment. A3. Risk assessment can be a very powerful process. It is the application that is the problem. I think a lot of this comes from the fact that people find it very difficult to understand risk. Whilst they may be able to quote something along the lines that "risk is a product of consequence and likelihood" they can't actually put that into practice. You will see this quite often in posts on this forum. One example that springs to mind is 'fire risk assessment' which has come to the fore due to recent regulatory changes. Much of the debate tends to focus on fire technicalities and miss the point of risk assessment. The answers are my personal opinion, and I have no direct evidence to back them up

Posted By David Gault Hi George, Just a bit of a stab at answering your questions instead of rambling too much - 1. Difficult to say how widespread risk assessment is in the UK. Amongst IOSH members I have had contact with it is widestread but I suspect (and it is only an opinion) it is not so widespread in smaller businesses without professional input. 2. The negative side to RA is that it is very subjective. Some people who do not mind risk may, possibly, moit some hazards from their risk assesment because they don't see them as such. However, if done dilligently and objectively it can be very useful. 3. Much for your second question. With good training and experience most people can write a good risk assessment if they put in the effort. However, good training is in itself a subjective matter as is experience. I hope that helps. I am interested in what you propose as an alternative; can you let me know? A new progressive idea would be welcomed, fo evaluation if nothing else.

Posted By Kenneth Patrick Peter "HSE background" do you mean you used to be an inspector with the HSE? For many of us we see the SSOW as the end product of a risk assessment. You agree that RA is "not and end in itself" so in your view what is the end product.? Ken

Posted By FAH Yaaayyyy! Go Al!!! As a footnote to Als extremely well interjected piece of history; may I suggest that it is only very recently that the UK successfully defended the official [not too far from John Rimingtons view] approach and application of the "reasonably practicable" concept to RA - although it was a very close run. Frank Hallett

Posted By Andy Brazier Frank I think you are referring to a complaint raised by the European Commission about the UK using the phrase "so far as is reasonably practicable" in conjunction with risk assessment. The UK took them to court and won. See http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2007/c07007.htm I'm not an expert on this. Is there anything you can add that may help George in Australia?

Posted By Eamon Murtagh The HSA in Ireland have published a series of SSOW Plans in Forms and pictogrammes in various languages: Safe System of Work Plan Title Year SSWP - Site Safety & You DVD 2008 SSWP Roadworks Form 2008 SSWP Roadworks Pictograms 2008 SSWP Ground Works Form Revised 2007 SSWP Multi Lingual Training DVD 2005 SSWP Ground Works Pictograms 2005 SSWP Demolition Form 2005 SSWP Demolition Pictograms 2005 SSWP Civil Engineering Form 2005 SSWP Civil Engineering Pictograms 2005 SSWP House Building Form 2005 SSWP House Building Pictograms 2005 SSWP New Commercial Building Form 2005 SSWP New Commercial Building Pictograms 2005 These Documents aresimple to use and are easily understood. An interactive Demonstration of the SSWP system is available on the HSA website at http://www.hsa.ie/eng/Se...teractive_Demonstration/