Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By davepennington2009
I have been asked by my line manager if it were possible to reduce the amount of different risk assessments which we have on site by combining them together under new titles,hence the reduction of risk assessments. My concern is if I carry this out does the risk assessment now become a method statement?.I can see the point in including the likes of manual handling, adverse weather conditions ect into existing risk assessments but where do you stop?.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Geoff Stear
Dave
Risk assessment is the cornerstone of safety management and I'd think very carefully before making significant process changes unless they could show improvements are the likely outcome.
My response to that person might be that you'd be prepared to consider anything he/she proposes as long as the risk assessment remains suitable and sufficient.
There are many ways to combine hazard groups and the key as always is in the skill of the assessor. Even the most competent assessor might struggle to consider all risks if the process is demanding too much from one document or 'sub-process'
Anything that would lower the standard or lead to a lack of control should be dismissed as a backward step.
Use language they understand (like 'Continuous Improvement' and 'world Class') and assure them that you are driving to achieve that.
Personally I'd rather have 10 really good assessments that help to reduce the risk than 1000 mediocre ones -with so many nobody will ever read them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By simondean1976
Hi Dave
Not going to tell you to suck eggs here, but as long as the risk assessment is 'suitable and sufficient' it doesn't matter if you have 20 or 1. You may even find that condensing them down makes life easier for yourself in terms of managing the system.
In terms of them being a method statement, two different documents as your method statement is more a sequence of works that derives from the risk assessment.
Si
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Hunter
Nothing wrong with a document serving as both method statement and R/A at Site level,particularly where the controls and method are well established and fit-for-purpose. There is after all no prescribed format for R/A.
A combined document perhaps has a better chance of success if concise and directly relevant to the task and the people doing it. This format is certainly easier to communicate and refer to on-site.
In my view, R/As should be task-based, and you should avoid splitting-off documents to discuss discrete areas of risk (e.g. manual handling) where at all possible.
Don't lose sight of any areas where it has been recognised (via R/A review) that further action is required though!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mick154
If it was me i would condense them down in to a risk register then as each one is suitably controlled then you can tick them off and show working progress
But as Geoff says “think carefully” before making changers, and as Ron says “make it fit for purpose”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Messy Shaw
As a former fire safety Inspecting Officer, nothing was more annoying that when I was presented with a half tonne folder containing every RA known to man.(when all I wanted was the FRA)
To be fair, it didn't happen that often, but the larger attempts were just too damn big to read/comprehend easily. The result? I used to spend much more time and much more effort reading them - and often find more errors as a result!!!
More seriously though, is that if you combine all the RAs into one huge tome, it's essential that they can be separated i order that amendments can be made. The bigger folders that I saw were largely poorly maintained as they were just to clumsy to 'operate'and update.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.