Hi Safetyman A beneficial approach is to break down all the 6 departments onto inputs and outputs in the same way as doing an environmental life cycle assessment -for example and not exhaustive, if you are a manufacturing company the first input would be goods in and would (maybe) as follows: Lorries in to docking bay offloading lorry use of flts use of pallets use of racking systems use of conveyor etc etc until you cover all operations in goods in - in a comprehensive manner. From goods in the raw materials go to? and go by? etc until transformed goods get put back on the goods out lorry. From this approach (if you are doing the assessments) you can get the managers to buy in by listing all the hazards and the controls for each of the sub department tasks. You can then draw up a Safe working practice that covers all the hazards and controls (small method statement). These can be then used as part of a training package to train al say "goods in" people on the safe working practices for there area. You can also use any safe working practices that are common to all 6 departments as training in any induction along with the staples such as fire safety manual handling etc etc. This then starts to give you the basis of an integrated system where the risk assessment controls use training and dessemination of safe working practices as a control as well as engineering and other control systems you may have in place. Even better if you have a trainer who can get people to sign off that they have had the training - even better is a small test after the training. you could do one thing one year and add on the next. So to answer your question i would stick with the managers breaking tasks down, dont try to do it all yourself and make sure that the assessment does not become the tool for imparting information, a safe working practice should be developed for each task. Take tasks that are common and integrate into site training if possible. You can PM me if you want some examples Really hope this helps Martin

In a previous life, we got the senior operators and supervisors to prepare a flow chart of their work activities and create a SOP (standard operating procedure) which were held in the main control rooms. We then trained the guys in doing risk assessments, prioritised and got them done. This meant changes to procedures as new controls were added. Positives; RAs in place SOP in place for training new people Lower incidents occurring Massive increase in "ownership" of their tasks and responsibilities Better morale Negatives; Resources had to be made available to close out any issues early to allow momentum to continue. Some teams did not buy in like other teams that led to a bit of "other shift" bickering Trying to keep management focused to keep the momentum going. Mangement offered overtime in the beginning but it was becoming very costly towards the end. Hope this helps David