Posted By Edward Shyer
As we all know that risk assessment is the backbone of safety management and as such and having seen many of the different kinds of assessment including manual handling, hazardous substances, work equipment and more importantly fire.
I find that the content of risk assessments vary from a one page document to a document worthy of a novel.

My question is who is the real target audiences for these documents and how do we ensure that these audiences understand the risk assessment presented to them.

Regards

Ted

Posted By David Bannister
Ted, to me the assessment is a tool for working out the safe/healthy way to do things. and then doing them that way. The assessment itself therefore is for managers to allow them to manage safely.

It is also to demonstrate to any interested party that the thought process in arriving at a risk control is appropriate (enforcement officers, solicitors, insurers, auditors, clients etc).

In each case the audience will have a different perspective and understanding so attempting to use language to fit all circumstances is tough.

I tend to stick to language that the primary users recognise ie line management.

Posted By Konstanty Budkiewicz
Morning Edward,

Fully agree with the approach of previous responses. Mindful that work instructions need to be kept simple for users, for periodic planned maintenance, I nominate RA-based controls for insertion in the appropriate part of the sequence of the safe system of work. These are published as revised work instructions in consultation with the worker and the sponsoring equipment engineer. This ensures ownership and good behaviours during implementation. A similar approach is taken when compiling MEDIUM AND HIGH risk breakdown work plans. This ensures that corporate knowledge is retained within a changing workforce, where breakdowns are repetitive, this RA may eventually form the new planned maintenance safe system of work

For completeness the serial number of the RA is listed on the maintenance work order. Should any party wish to go deeper into the safe system of work this provides an audit route.

All such RAs are reviewed at intervals dicatated by their identified level of risk; for example, LOW risk 3 years, MEDIUM risk 2 years, HIGH annually.

Posted By GARRY WIZZ
I seem to end up with a very detailed risk assessment, or I have broken the task down to smaller chunks and then RA each piece.

This means I can have a meaty piece of paper. The reason for this approach is that if I write it all down it helps to formalise and clarify my thoughts and allows me to stew on it for bit to confirm that it is all correct. Another benefit for me is that in writing a detailed document this quite often prompts the recognition of additional hazards that did not occur to me in the first instance.

RA's signed off by MD. I do not go along with this idea that everyone needs to see my RA's.
The main hazards identified / controls are filtered into SSOW etc.

Ra's available to anyone who wants to read them but this generally only happens in the Safety meetings.

garry

Posted By Simon Shaw
Going back to the original question, what we seem to be talking about is the record of the risk assessment - the paper (or electronic) record we produce.

I think that the audience will vary from time-to-time; it might be an enforcement authority, manager, insurance company/ solicitor, employees, etc...........

For me, I want to be able to pick up a risk assessment record and be able to read - a description of the activity (what happens, when, how, by whom, etc....); who might be harmed and how; what controls are in place to prevent people being harmed; are these controls adequate or do other things need to happen; what are the other things that need to happen; when they have happened I would like it to show on the record that the additional measures have been implemented.

Personally, I don't like the grid system of assessing risk - I just like to see whether, in the opinion of the assessors, anything else needs to be done.

Remember that someone might be reading this record in 3 years time when everyone involved in the assessment no longer works for the organisation.

As for presenting the findings; when the document is first produced, I wouldn't expect people to just read the document - I would expect it to form part of on-the-job training, or group presentations, one-to-one discussions, etc.

Posted By Raymond Rapp
Edward

I find the whole process of RAs very irritating. Done well they can be a useful aid; unfortunately they are often not worth the paper they are written on.

For most organisations they are nothing more than a paper exercise. Insulating the company from any litigation.

Personally, I would prefer to focus on cultural aspects, good supervision, empowerment etc. The notion of completing RAs to identify the correct controls is all well and good, but in practice it often falls down because those tasked with the job do not have the knowledge or time to make them effective.

Regards

Ray

Posted By Pete48
Ted, isn't it more the case that the problem is the term risk assessment has become a bit like the word hoover"; it may be what you ask for but it isn't what you actually want.

Risk management has to be holistic or it doesn't work. Risk assessment is just one part of that picture. Risk management is about understanding the hazards fully and deciding whether to transfer, treat, tolerate or terminate the risks arising from what we want to achieve. Then recording those decisions for each of the identified hazards. The language used should be "technical" in nature since it is a technical document. Concise, clear, supportable statements. They should contain references and data to support judgements made unless those references and data are obvious and can be simply verbalised. Thus you produce information that clearly outlines the accepted level of risk in all areas of the undertaking. The documents are primarily for the senior managers/execs of the undertaking in the same way as the financial assessments are.

It is the documents that are produced subsequent to and in support of the RA where more care is needed about their complexity and relevance. e.g method statements; operating and maintenance procedures; training plans to name but a few. It is at this point that the input and involvement of managers and employees is really valuable since these are the documents that they use every day.

Risk assessment is not just about workplace hazard spotting and checking that risk controls are in place at the time the work is being undertaken.(important though that is)
It is about defining the risk we have agreed to take!. In our rush to involve everyone in the process I feel we have sometimes lost our way and allowed people with insufficient skills to complete risk assessments without proper guidance and support. The results are often confusing, overly cautious and "assume" engineering controls are effective and are outwith the assessment they are doing.
Maybe that is why you now see so many different approaches.

Posted By Pete48
Simon, looking at the task from the other end.
In effect you end up with a statement of the controls you have been able/have chosen to put into place thus leaving the risks you have accepted.
Think about manual handling as a good example. How many undertakings have/could actually completely eliminate the risks from manual handling? So what the exec and managers need to understand is what risks they have chosen to tolerate in the business. Then review, cost benefit etc etc.
Positive business management decisions that they make, not the safety person.
It is just a different way of expressing it that aligns more closely to other business risk approaches and draws us away from the "safety says no" syndrome.
Not a panacea or academic study, just a worked example.