I have heard indirectly that HSE inspector at the Workshop 8B at the conference was quite critical of dynamic risk assessment. In particular that they did not meet the requirements of the management regs.I wonder if there was much discussion on this point of view at the workshop.

This inspector is clearly demonstrating that like many he/she simply does not understand what a DRA really is. This is worrying as the technique properly applied is one of the best tools to keep the operative aware of changing conditions etc as the task progresses. I actually deplore many of the ways in which DRA is used especially when Generic assessments are used without these being updated in some way to a Task Risk Assessment before work commences. Service Engineers regularly visiting the same equipment in the same location are a typical case. Let us take an instrument technician attending to change a valve head in a boiler room. The first time this is done a TRA should be created and left on site. At further visits the TRA is reviewed, updated if necessary and signed or additional TRAs are newly created for new tasks. The process is ongoing but then DRA is concerned with monitoring and responding to changing conditions or dealing with non anticipated changes occurring DURING work. It is an adjunct to the TRA and not a replacement. Yes many using DRA are using it incorrectly but this is a criticism not of DRA but the people. DRA is an aid to better compliance when used with adequate TRAs

It's essential that people understand what is meant by dynamic risk assessment (DRA). At its basic level surely all of us use DRA almost unthinkingly during common actions such as deciding when it's safe to walk cross a road or negotiating a road junction while driving a vehicle. Decisions about actions in these examples are based on: i) relevant safety rules/guidance which equate to the Task Risk Analysis (TRA) mentioned by boblewis. e.g. the Green Cross Code as taught to children in the UK for crossing roads. and ii) conditions/circumstances observed and interpreted (hopefully correctly) at the decision time e.g. seeing a vehicle approach as one intends to cross a road: How far away is it, what speed is it doing, is there time to get across the road safely or is it better to wait for for the vehicle to pass before crossing? Though the above scenarios are not especially work-related, I've always found them effective when explaining risk assessment during training sessions for headteachers and other managers from my employer's schools.

Exactly what is a GENERIC risk assesment? I say this with tongue in cheek as people think they can get away with doing risk assessments becasue someone did a Generic Risk assesment. I also dont like the term "Dynamic risk assesment" Whats Dynamic about it? What does it actually mean. The law requirement says "Suitable & Sufficient" Not Dynamic!

Totally agree Bob Lewis & Graham Bullough. I've done some work with the Maritime & Coastguard Agency & DRA is a fundamental part of safe working. Just how they & the emergency services would get on without it I don't know - reckon the HSE Inspector has let himself down very badly..... a right plonker!

Yes Graham - maybe an apology in advance - however he wouldn't if he indeed did, be the first to be disparaging about the usefulness of DRA

I've never understood DRA to be a "thing", but rather a set of skills and behaviours which are an essential part of risk management, and (as Graham pointed out) daily life. I don't see how you can have "a" DRA (ie a documented or otherwise completed set of findings) - isn't the whole point that your environment may be constantly changing, whether by your own actions, those of others, changes in location, etc etc. DRA is a fancy way of encouraging people to keep their wits about them, possibly with some task- or location-specific pointers, isn't it? If people use a written DRA (distinct from a task- or site-specific risk assessment), who is it for? Is it just a record that employees have checked for risks & controls at a set frequency? Calling a written document (which is always going to be only a record of what happened in the past, and not at all dynamic) a DRA might run the risk of letting people forget that these skills are ones we all use, and some of the actions (eg awareness of surroundings) aren't complicated and get used all the time by everyone. We've still some way to go towards changing hearts & minds though. Pieces of paper that no doubt start off by being a useful reminder list end up becoming the point of the exercise. I've been on jobs where I've heard things like "Has someone done a DRA?", "Yeah, Kevin did." It's an interesting topic.

Just wondering, If you use DRA as part of your risk assessment procedure, surely you have a duty under MHSWR Reg 3 to ensure it is suitable and sufficient, and if you have more than 5 employees record your significant findings? We use DRA as part of our procedure, but we should always record the findings in the interest of probity, as many of the dynamic actions could have far reaching consequences. Especially if an employee uses DRA, to control/mitigate/avoid a problem, if it isn't recorded then the next employee may not..

Graham is saying a lot of sense. Generic Assessments for me are purely a hypothetical view of how the task should be done and consider those things that are static in a work place plus the person and the tools. At the task level the TRA will consider what is happening etc at the time work commences. DRA is a process continually occurring DURING the task and is to moniotr changes and the unexpected and respond appropriately. Generic RAs for me are in many senses remote from the task of the day. Any written DRA is by definition NOT a DRA in my book. We need to get out of the way of thinking that refers DRA to a point before work starts - by definition it is a TRA that is done before work starts. Bob

Graham - go look at the Control of Lead at Work Regs 1980; they were a pilot for COSHH if my memory serves. Why after 20 years are we still getting bogged down in risk assessment? Because the original HSE guidance hasn't grown with time and experience (compare the 1999 ACOP with the 1992 one if you can still find a copy) and the HSE and particularly EHOs have flogged "5 steps" long after it should have been given a quiet burial at sea... a long way offshore. The recent on-line assessment tools have lowered the bar again (go try one for a laugh). Until... Until something goes wrong then risk assessment transmogrifies into 20:20 hindsight accident prediction but as the guidance is weak we shouldn't be surprised. One of the many results of the weaknesses of present official guidance is that the door is open for terms like "dynamic" and "generic" and debates over what they mean. But the present debate confuses process with purpose. No matter what we call it, what is the purpose of risk assessment? It lurks in the tag line at the end of Reg 3(1) of the Management Regs. It is "... for the purpose of identifying the measures he needs to take to comply...". He is the employer, not the tradesman. This implies that the risk assessment must be done long before yer man jumps into his van to go visit someone's plant room so that all the precautions have been defined and put in place to protect him. But if we accept that we still need to rely on the tradesman (yes, and woman, I'm not being sexist, I just don't like "tradesperson") to work out which precautions matter and to stick his hand up for help when he hits a snag then I would pose this question back at the proponents of dynamic risk assessment: Do you collect and analyse all the paperwork you make your tradesmen fill in? If not, aren't you in danger of failing to "review" if they are flagging up regular snags? And actually, what's the difference between this and properly engaging with your workforce long before you start drafting any form of assessment? After all, they are the people we need to keep in mind through all this.

But Ron you are just accepting my view :-) Every situation is dynamic and at work it needs to be constatly reviewed and action taken - it is a feedback loop that the process of DRA is encouraging NOT a written checklist or proforma. We are wanting to get the operative active in her/his own HS&W. Just llike HASAWA said some 3.5 decades ago Bob

Could the DRA not been seen as an aide memoir ie checklist of potential unsafe conditions and controls. If so, it should provide the prompt the unwary may find useful. A DRA should not be seen as a replacement for assessing the risks when they go to site, nor should it contain basic risks which are an everyday part of the task. That's my take on it anyway.

Just to qualify, I mean DRA's aren't written down in the initial RA..

Actions and events encountered withi the DRA context may be recorded IF they are a permanent change affecting the TRA but why on earth bother otherwise. The law is satisfied by a suitable and sufficient TRA NOT the DRA aspect of work. Yes the profession is being dogged by those who try to make DRA something it is not by stretching its purpose and definition. We can only prove that DRA occurs via training and monitoring the output of operatives when at work. This is called adequate supervision and is a key part in ensuring competence at work in the required task activities. We do not have written output because the process itself is defined as DYNAMIC. It requires written output only in certain narrowly defined situations when some event encountered is likely to re-occur in the task at future dates. Bob

I agree with Gramsey's comments, a DRA to me is a skill that you can train your people rather than a document. You should have a task based risk assessment, specific for what your doing but as these are never perfect your people should be trained that if the conditions change to those outside those covered on the RA they stop and think. This might just be for a minute and then decide to carry on as things haven't changed that much, right up to total evacuation of the area. Put simply, DRA can be summed up as 'Dont carry on regardless'.

JohnW All those who are utilising my original Take 5 from back in 1990s as Take5 and Step 5 tand its variants oday are using a system FAR from what was intended. It was never intended that there should be a written record. The DWP contract has a lot to answer for. It was this that staterted this recorded DRA nonsense. In my view it was a lazy way of avoiding TRAs. These sytem derivatives of my original have become mere shadows of the TRA that they are trying to be, under the guise of a DRA Bob

Ron When working with a major oil multi national I came across a technique used in Australia designed for tanker delivery drivers at forecourts. All the material was specific to this task but the essential core was a 5 step nemonic STICC Stop, Think, Identify, Contol, Communicate if required. In this I saw the roots of a dynamic process, particularly construction at that time. The key is to provide an easy to remember monitoring cycle for routine and non routine tasks. The operative is encouraged to be aware, via training and monitoring, of what is deviating from the intended in the work method and TRA. It was never intended that complicated checklist and records were used as this defeated the process itself. The process was however picked up by the DWP in one of its major contracts and at that moment the STEP 5 and its variants were born. Now there was a booklet in which the operative recorded their assessments and the supervisors stepped back from undertaking adequate TRAs and relied on monitoring that something was written in the operatives book QED Bob

Ron Sure thing and one can see the contractor et al brain cells working - DWP are using it thus it is HSE acceptable thence to approved in some way. I think I have seen around 10 derivatives to date of what was originally designed. WE really must get back to performing proper TRAs and stop the reliance of generic assessments and trying to move everything onto the operative. Operatives do their part by following the TRA and monitoring the ongoing task as it is undertaken. As I said previously it is the TRA that has to be suitable and sufficient before work starts. Bob

Bob, yes, I'm with you there. I remember when attending a Nebosh course the instructor couldn't get the 5 steps right (as they are in the INDG). Two of the steps are Step 3: Evaluate the risks and decide on precautions Step 4: Record your findings and implement them How can all THAT be 2 steps !!! Have a good weekend!

Since the thread has spread quite helpfully into other forms of RA I think i could add this as a footnote. An ex HSE Inspector described to me this 4 What version of Risk Assessment. Of what, from what, to what = Risk Analysis and the final step So What makes this into a Risk Assessment.