Rank: New forum user 
|
I work at a manufacturing company in the medium to high risk catagory. The site employs less than 200 people. The site currently has in the region of 600 RA's (if we discount ones for MH, DSE, etc), and probably about 300 SSOW's.
I think over the years (the site has been in operation since the 1700's) people not understanding the point of RA have created needless ones (for example we did have one for using a kettle!) alongside ones with real value (e.g. asbestos locations and risk).
It appears to me that some of the SSOW pre-date some risk assessments and vice versa (probably because of the HASAWA requiring safe systems and then the MHSAWR requiring RA).
In my opinion the current system is losing its effectiveness, too many needless RA's to review, SSOW not linking back to RA's, RA's not linking effectively to the legal register and accident statictics and training schedules.
My proposal is to create a core of ~26 RA's to cover the significant hazards (e.g. confined spaces, work equipment, workplace transport, lifting operations, lifting equipment, etc, etc.) and then from this to rationalise the entire list of SSOW to create an easier to use management system for the current operation and the future generation.
So my question is has anybody done this, or do you do this already? Does anyone else use the principle of 'core' RA's?
Any comments appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I am working in a similar sized manufacturing environment and have around 120 risk assessments in place, some for fairly specific processes.
I agree that core RA's are useful for the general processes on site. I've used process mapping in one high risk area to ensure that all stages of production are assessed and to avoid duplication. A simple flow chart showing each step of the process and the risk assessments that apply can help make sense of what might otherwise be a big pile of documents.
Written SSOW can similarly be attached to a process flow chart. Ideally a SSOW document should be linked to a one or more risk assessments to show the link between the H&S risk assessment process and the systems of work adopted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I'm a consultant and my largest customer is a similar size.
Much as Jimothy describes, the site is divided into processes and there's an RA for each. So an assembly line has a RA not each conveyor or oven or saw.
Also there's RA for offices (with specific hazards noted), first aid management, asbestos management, return to work, stress at work etc.
There's about 50 RA's - one of my regular duties is to review these, I have a yearly schedule of review dates. I review the RAs and where appropriate I review some of their method statements etc
RA's are prepared where there is significant risk.
There are RA's for fork-lift driving, HGV driving, but also a RA for 'Loading In The Yard and on the Road' - probably the highest risk on site because the site fails to completely segregate pedestrians and vehicles, despite my efforts to encourage this :o(
JohnW
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
One way of managing this particular task is to create a matrix with job titles on the top and RAs down the side. For example, there will be many RAs such as manual handling, which will cover a number of different roles and these can be aligned on the matrix to avoid repetition. It would probably be useful to colour code certain types of roles where the inherent hazards are the same or not too dissimilar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Spot on Matt you are heading in the right direction. The RAMS process has been made far to complex over the last 20 years and we need to row back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.