Posted By Steve Crookes I view "risk management" a little less cynically. I try to take a holistic approach to the subject and view the overall aspects of risk management as per 8800, 18001 & HS(G)65- a cycle of continuous improvement, much as any other subject, skill etc is improved continuosly. No-one, or at least very few, have the resources to go from X amount of risk to zero risk in an instant. Risk management is about identification of hazards and prioritisation. This means that it takes time to eliminate all the possible hazards that face an organisation. And organisations change, ergo, new hazards arise that present risks that need to be addressed, or "managed" according to current legislation, so the cycle of continuous improvement goes on. There is also the application of the reasonably practicable risk/sacrifice equation. Skill and experience is required to get it right. Risk management failed? I don't think so. In fact, it has probably only just begun.

Posted By Ian Harper I have always held the opionion that zero accidents are a realistic goal but that in achieving that, managing risk has to prioritse the risks in order to eliminate them. Risk management is about about determining what risks require managing to what level. Determining the level of acceptable risk is just as important as managing the risk itself. Looking at larger orgainisations, some accept a level of fatality! The rail industry accepts 1 trackside fatality per 100000 employees as the target. If this is acheived then everyone will be happy and give themselevs a pat on the back. But now we are moving into zero accidents as a statement for promoting cultural change. As a safety manager, I always define the goal a zero accidents. I will never accept an accident as acceptable and as such risk managment must comform to that thinking in my orgainsation. In reality, when investigating accidents and incidents I do understand where forseeable and unforseen boundaries lie and try to make them forseeable and solvable in the future. My simple answer is that you will get closer to the standard of saftey you really want if you define it. If you accept that accidents will happen in accordance to the national averages and you are happy you are just under them, good for you. Risk management is about constant improvement, what we accept today we must not accept tomorrow. Risk management is the tool for the job and I think its real value lies in idnetifying the very things its being challenged on, what is acceptable and how long can it continue.

Posted By Adrian Watson Dear all, Whilst, I would tend to agree with those who argue that it is not possible to eliminate or control all risks and thereby prevent all losses, injuries and ill health and doubt whether it will be ever possible to eliminate or control all risks, I strongly believe that we should try to achieve this objective! However, I disagree with Ciaran’s contention that risk management has failed and we should discard this paradigm and contend that in attempting to identify and manage risks, we are now better placed to prevent losses, injuries and ill health than when we followed prescriptive standards that were reactive by their very nature. Additionally, whilst I agree with Ciaran’s prepositions that "...‘risk management’ ... promotes the concept of acceptable levels of risk" and that “risk management posits an acceptable level of risk and proceeds to manipulate the circumstances to increase the odds in favour of a non-injurious outcome” and that risk is subjective I do not accept that it is totally subjective, or that we are gambling with the safety of workers, or with Ciaran’s implicit conclusion that because we accept the concepts of risk management, we necessarily embrace the risk of injury or fatalities lightly. Finally I cannot agree with Ciaran’s statement that “If safety, not the risk, is managed and we can control the safety of the operation then it does not matter how hazardous the environment is since the operation itself is non-hazardous and the outcome will always be non-injurious” I believe that this point of view is not only erroneous but also dangerous, because if you assess the risks from the hazards implicit in the operation without taking into account those risk factors introduced by the physical, psycho-social or organisational environment you will fail to examine all the risks and are unlikely to manage or carry out the work safely, even if no loss occurs. For example in working in confined spaces in limestone regions carbon dioxide may migrate into confined spaces under low pressure, if this is not taken into account in the safe working procedures and practices, then asphyxiation could result, even though the atmosphere is not deficient in oxygen. In this case the fact the risk was not accessed does not mean that it was acceptable, nor does it mean that because someone was not asphyxiated does it necessarily mean that he was safe! Regards Adrian Watson.

Posted By Ciaran McAleenan There is no risk in an operation. Either you will achieve your objective or you won’t. Risk exists only in ignorance, that is that you don’t know whether you will succeed or fail. A managed operation, however, is one in which all of the hazards have been considered and the controls have been put in place so that the operation itself is free from risk. If risk continues to exist it can only be because there are insufficient controls and that may be for a variety of reasons. Challenging an accepted paradigm is not cynical as Steve Crooks suggests since the concept of continuous improvement has to extend to looking at how well our management systems perform and to moving on when they fail to meet our expectations. Risk management is not a divine paradigm above evaluation and criticism. On the contrary by exposing its limitations we can go beyond it to a paradigm that will achieve the “nil accident” objective. Risk management by definition is self-contradictory and as it is practised accepts that an injurious outcome to some work activities is unavoidable such that it merely seeks to reduce the likelihood. The H&S legislation “so far as is reasonably practicable”, HSG65, BS8800, and OHSAS18000 all accept this position. Proper management of the entire operation requires that you define your operational outcome, provide the resources and review to consider the possibility of failure, prior to commencement, during the process and at various other stages. Much of what is defended by the safety professionals in this thread and in the recent letters pages in SHP is defensible but where the risk management paradigm differs is in it’s acceptance of risk and therefore it’s acceptance of some failure. Malcolm and others state that “there are always going to be injuries and deaths in the workplace". Accepting this as an inevitable outcome sets your expectations and limitations. Risk management supports this fatalistic approach to safety and seeks to limit the likelihood of injury rather than to eliminate it totally. Steve Crooks’ statement "reasonably practicable risk/ sacrifice equation" and Ian Harper’s rail industry figure of 1 death in 100000 employees being acceptable sums up my point that risk management accepts failure. I don't see the dead employee, his family or his friends cheering but I totally agree with Ian that you get closer to the standard of safety that you want if you define it and that continuous improvement is a necessary part of the management process. I also agree with Stuart Nagle’s views that management systems do provide the answer and that actual control measures are the most important safety factor. This links to Ian Harper’s point that "you get closer to the standard of safety that you want if you define it". You will achieve it if you manage it. There can only be one standard, no matter how you dress it up. Namely that we produce a product or service in a manner that will not injure our workforce or others. That straightforward position, extended includes; no damage to the environment or to profitability. In other words it is not unreasonable to consider all the potential losses and put the proper controls in place prior to commencement. In disputing my statement; “If safety, not the risk, is managed and we can control the safety of the operation then it does not matter how hazardous the environment is since the operation itself is non-hazardous and the outcome will always be non-injurious “, Adrian Watson lists several issues (physical, psycho-social etc) that he feels I have not considered when setting forth my position. However if the operation is safe then any external or internal hazard has been identified and has either been eliminated or properly controlled. Finally I will post a part of Philip’s statement from an earlier thread “Soundbites Required (union consultation)” that expands further the thinking behind the “Risk Management has failed” argument, “Bear in mind that a risk is basically the element of chance in an activity, whether it is 50:50 or 1:1,000,000. Every week millions of people put their money on lesser odds in the Lottery and most weeks one or more come up trumps. Work environments where the element of chance is retained (for whatever reason) are environments where every week someone's number comes up. And that is why risk costs the UK more the £20bn and the USA more than $127bn every year. No matter what the odds are, no matter how well "managed" the activity, the next time could be that one in a million time because there is no chance rule that says that the activity has to be done a million times before the accident. In fact every time could theoretically be a one in a million time. "Risk Management" simply tries to improve the odds.” Regards, Ciaran mailto:ciaran@confinedspaces.com

Posted By Ciaran McAleenan In a recent article in ASSE’s professional journal Dominic Cooper commented; “Taking a more relaxed viewpoint has enormous practical implications. For example, in the UK, aiming for a 99.9% success rate would mean accepting that each day: * 10 trains would crash on the rail network, * 15 babies would be dropped on the floor at birth, * 125 surgical operations would go wrong, * 27 people would be wrongly prescribed dangerous drugs, * 72,000 cheques would be deducted from the wrong bank accounts, * 88 missed heartbeats would be experienced by each citizen, * 96,000 items of mail would be lost by the Royal Mail, and * Hundreds of people would be injured at work. These statistics support the goal of aiming for zero incidents rather than accepting 99.9%” Regards Ciaran mailto:ciaran@confinedspaces.com

Posted By Rob Todd Sorry Ciaran, Anyone who thinks that you can achieve zero fatalities within the greater concept of health and safety is living in cloud cuckoo land. Within the last 5 years, 450 journalists have lost their lives in the pursuit of news. The only way to achieve a zero level would be to not be a journalist! Risk management is all about bringing the risk of a legitimate activity to it's lowest level. This can still be regarded as high risk so long as the task is necessary and all possible safety aspects have been thought of. You may of course achieve a zero level of fatality if no humans are involved in any work. Rob

Posted By Rob Todd Tim, They think it is! Who am I to argue! All we can do is give every possible level of assistance, training, equipment and in some cases actually force them to withdraw (as we did in East Timor and at times in Sierra Leonne etc. etc.) I myself, in the pursuit of achieving the highest level of protection for some of these people, have been shot at, guns been poked up my nose (literally) and flown into war zones in aeroplanes (sort of - looked like one at least) avoiding local missile protection systems. As I said, and although this is an extreme example, it is impossible to achieve a zero fatality level whilst human beings are involved. Cheers