Rank: Forum user 
|
Hi Everyone
Interested to hear what people think about which should come first?
Do you
a. Do a Risk Assessment in order to generate a Method Statement? or
b. Develop a methodology (and document in a Method Statement) then Assess the residual Risks?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi Kay
I would say they can both be completed alongside one another up to a point. This allows you to develop the method statement/SSoW as you complete the risk assessment.
When you are identifying the hazards and controls, you are pretty much devising a safe method for completing the task anyway.
Not sure what other think but that's the way I tend to do it anyway.
Regards
Barry
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I'm sure most will tell you that the Risk Assessment comes first as this highlights the need to do a Method Statement or SSOW.
To be honest I quite often create the SSOW and during the process it throws up what hazards are involved and controls which are often already in place or required which I use to complete the Risk Assessment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Both happen together. You can't have one without the other except in a case where your task is so trivial your RA identifies that it needs no controls and it doesn't matter how it is approached. If you can'ty have one without the other, one doesn't happen first in any meaningful sense. Many tasks so obviously require a MS you don't need to do any sort of formalised RA process first to identify that you need both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I don't as a rule write method statements, however if I was given the scope of work I could work out quite easily the risks involved and complete a RA. Hence for me the logical progression is to complete the methodology (MS) in order to assess the inherent risks. I can't really see how it can be the other way round.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Risk assessment is a process not a document, so the answer to the question is neither option A or B.
The risk assessment process should work like this:
* Carry out an initial risk assessment
- If the risk is high, is there likely to be an acceptable method?
- If the risk is low, is a method statement even needed?
* Identify methods that can be used to complete the activity
* Assess risks of different methods to determine which is likely to be safest
* Develop a detailed description of chosen method
* Assess the risks of completing the activity using the chosen method
* Identify additional controls to reduce residual risk
* Confirm risk of chosen method is acceptable.
That is the process. You may not document every stage, but it is clear you could not complete a risk assessment until the method has been described in full.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I suggest that we need to differentiate between two different situations:
1. This is a new task, not yet started. In this case I would have an idea about how we might carry out the task. Not a formal method statement as such. I would then risk assess my idea and modify my concept to adequately control the risks. This would provide me with the method statement. I would then recommend a further risk assessment once the task has been commenced to ensure that no new risks are occurring that require a modification of the method statement.
2. This is a task already being carried out. Here the risk assessment will identify where the method requires modification so as to adequately control the risk. Once the changes have been implemented then a second risk assessment is needed to show that we now have an acceptable method and from this we can produce the method statement.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Method Statements are the exception rather than the rule. The Risk Assessment process should offer a robust challenge to the process /method and ask if what is being done is actually the best and safest way to go about things.
Order of events is not entirely meaningful. Assessment of Risk is an iterative, cyclic an continuous process via active/reactive monitoring and reactive and scheduled review.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
What do you say to a CDM C who demands a MS and you have previously risk assessed and the risk is low?
It's all opinions methinks!
Whose risk is it anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Firesafety101 wrote:What do you say to a CDM C who demands a MS and you have previously risk assessed and the risk is low? I can't imagine a circumstance where the CDM-C would be in a position to "demand" that. Tell him, ever so politely, to go away and let you get on with doing your job?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
ron hunter wrote:Method Statements are the exception rather than the rule. In your industry maybe, but I don't think it's as general a statement as you present it to be. In the sector of industry where 2/3 of my company's work occurs, the work that does not require a method statement is the exception (though they are encompassed in a larger document called a WPP).
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.