Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Chris Boocock
Should Risk Assessment formats be standardised. I think not, and am debating this within my company at the moment. My reasoning is that with a standard format, the few high risk tasks may be given the same attention as the many low risk tasks we do, and that there may be overkill in some areas, and more worryingly underkill in other more important areas. I don't believe that a standard risk assesment format is either suitable and sufficient in all cases, and that the type of risk assessment done should be a function of the manitude of the risks associated with the task.
I'd be interested to receive some opinion on this.
Thanks - Chris.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Liam Mc Conalogue
Hi Chris,
It all comes down to the type of work activity being assessed, if it is a constantly changing environment these would not be correct assessments to use.
The type of risk assessment you are referring to are known as generic or model risk assessments which can be used for an situations that aren't exposed to change.
When using such types of risk assessment it is essential that the use of such is detailed in your health & safety policy. This is to highlight the need for these generic risk assessments to be reconstructed if the work practices/environment were to change in any way.
The choice is yours as they say!
Liam
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ian mcnally
Chris. I agree, it does depend on what tasks you are expecting your workforce to carry out. Personally I have nothing against standardised risk assessment formats and believe them to be of value, particularly where simple repetitive low risk tasks are involved.
We use such formats which are in the form of a tick sheet although some information is usually required to be entered on the sheet, it is minimal. The maintenance operative will have a job sheet with the risk assessment printed on the reverse. They are required to go through the thought process each time since they need to identify hazards by ticking the applicable boxes. Because the format is easy to use and can be done quickly, it seems to work. Not perfect, but I have yet to see a practical perfect system.
The sheets are monitored for content and to ensure they are actually being completed. Initially I was not popular for introducing the system, but over time people have come to love it!.....well, accept it maybe.
Probably a good number of those accessing this forum would agree that complex high risk activities need a far more analytical approach where such a generic form would not be suitable or sufficient and I agree with this.
I do have concerns where contractors produce standard generic risk assessments with pages of text and complex risk matrices attached, I feel these are unlikely to be read or properly understood by anyone actually doing the work.
I too will be interested to hear some other opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Boocock
Liam - thanks.
I worry about generic risk assessments, as if something is done routinely, it should be formally risk assessed and a standard operating procedure introduced and the operatives trained. At the other end of the scale we can have some very high risk jobs which do have in depth risk assesments which does result in a safe system of work. But in the middle there can be whole raft of work that is covered by blanket Risk Assessments.
I guess my thoughts are such that we need to ensure that Risk Assessment is a thought process and not just a tick in the box type activity - to produce a document that is of value and not just to be completed for completness' sake and to fill a hole in a folder somewhere, and only used in the event of an incident!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Boocock
Ian.
You sound like you have a good system - promoting the thought process - and actually monitoring the content - one of my concerns is that the term risk assessment has become too much of a phrase without meaning as I've heard it bandied about in the most inappropriate arenas - people using it without actually understanding what it is they're saying!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Laurie
"Five Steps" as propounded by the HSE, is a standardised risk assessment format, and can be used for picking flowers or blowing up tower blocks (Well, perhaps not, but you get my drift!!).
The format should have no effect on the integrity of the assessment - this is controlled by the assessor
Laurie
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Longworth
The actual process of risk assessment can be standardised as can any pro-forma. It is the actual content of the assessment that will be different. At the end of the day all it is is an way of identifying and mitigating the risks associated with a particular hazard. Nothing more, nothing less
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Boocock
Peter -
I absolutely agree - we can have as many or few forms as we want - but they will serve no purpose unless we have the right people completing them. I worry about checklist type proformas as although they prompt the thought process, they can also have the effect of limiting the thought process - "I've considered every box so that's all I have to think about".
Regards - Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Craythorne
Some people get too hung up on formats/pro formas. It is the methodology applied and the competence of the assessor(s) that are critical to the success of the risk assessment process.
Regards,
Paul Craythorne
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.