Link to this Post | Leave a Comment
The Future of Risk Assessment
When I was asked a few weeks ago to talk on the future of risk assessment at the Health and Safety Expo the idea seemed simple enough at the time. However, as the days passed and I got to thinking about the future of risk assessment I realised that, thinking of risk assessment as a tool, it may not have such a bright future.
To look at the future for risk assessment I thought it was necessary to look back at the history to try and understand how risk assessment had developed and what it was trying to achieve.
The generally accepted view in the world of health and safety is that risk assessment was implied in the Court of Appeal, Edwards v National Coal Board, judgement in 1949 when L J Asquith said “a computation must be made [by the owner of the risk] in which the quantum of risk must be placed on one scale.
Looking at the two key words in that judgement, ‘computation’ and ‘quantum’ I believe it is worth reminding ourselves of their meaning. One of the dictionary offerings for ‘computation’ means to determine by mathematics or numbers and similarly ‘quantum’ is said to be something that is counted or measured, or a ‘quantity or amount’.
Whilst this is the first time I have ever written these meanings and the detail of the judgement down, I have been aware of their existence since the late 1980’s when I first got involved in risk assessment as part of my company’s compliance with the then new COSHH regulations. At that time it seemed clear to me that the way to calculate risk, if at all possible, was by using some numerical scale, the idea being to reduce as far as far as possible the subjectivity created by different individuals with different experiences when assessing risk. I felt it would also help in the traceability of the risk assessment process should this ever be necessary, for example during an investigation.
I have to admit that my first attempt at producing something to calculate risk was entirely paper based but it had laid the foundations for me. The increased use of computers and spread sheets in the 1990’s provided an invaluable risk for developing risk assessment tools. I know from my travels and visits to companies during this period as a contractor that many other mangers were involved in their own development of such tools.
Two things became evident to me during this time; firstly the rush to develop pc based risk assessment tools by different organisations led to such a wide variety of formats that comparing them and their resulting levels of risk became very difficult. This would happen at the planning stage of large projects when health and safety was being considered. Secondly, it was clear that assessing risk and coming up with the resulting terms of ‘low’, ‘medium’ and ‘high’ would appear to be inadequate without using the numerical calculation and a clear interpretation of those words for everyone involved in such an assessment.
To the present day then; I see risk assessments produced by a wide variety of organisations with a similarly wide range of success in providing a well thought out and meaningful risk assessment. It seems that many large organisations are using some form of risk computation, usually in a risk matrix form, and producing the level of risk assessment that can be used as the basis for defining what control measures to use and as a basis for providing risk and control information to those involved at the sharp end. Realistic levels of risk reduction are usually identified.
It is evident from the work I am currently involved in with my colleagues that the larger companies are asking for much more detailed health and safety management and particularly risk assessments form smaller companies they engage as contractors or suppliers. This is very evident in the construction industry during the pre-qualification and tendering stage on many projects. What is also very evident is a clear two-tier system for safety management in general and again, risk assessments. There seems to be a belief from many small companies that as long as all the risks are shown as ‘low’ then the ‘safety bloke’ at the main contractors’ will be happy. It may be that this was once the case but not anymore, as the ‘safety bloke’ is becoming much more discerning about who he lets loose on a construction site.
And so, finally, we can look to risk assessment possibilities for the future. The natural development of technology surrounding the use of computers and particularly internet access and use, has given us a major opportunity to have an easily accessible risk assessment system for all companies, regardless of size.
One thing seems clear to me that a standard template for producing a risk assessment would be beyond a good idea, there can be standardisation with a little effort, think of the success of the USB port on computers. It might have been a neat idea to have had such a standard template back in 1992 with the introduction of the MHSWR but it’s never too late to change for the better.
This would make the reading, interpretation and understanding of risk assessment so much easier for all those involved and particularly for those who find it to be a new process, or more paperwork the ‘safety bloke’ is asking for. There would also be clear benefits when developing training and awareness packages for those involved.
If a standard template was made available then it could be used by the small companies and the self employed and they would get the benefit of the experience and knowledge of the companies they are trying to supply to. This would go some way to eradicating the ‘first world’/’third world’ feel that risk assessment uptake and use has in many areas.
So, how would this new risk assessment be accessed by the companies using it? The obvious way is by the internet. Indeed the HSE have provided a Farm Assessment to agriculture, which is downloaded from the internet. It isn’t a risk assessment as such but a check against the standards required in the relevant INDG publications. The reports from the trial of the system showed a higher than expected uptake of the system with 1800 farmers involving themselves in the trial. 95% said they would continue to use it and 98% said they would recommend it to their peers. Having grown up in agriculture and spending the first seventeen years of my working life there I can tell you this is no small achievement.
So if there is acceptance of new technology and systems from an industry that is primarily made up of small or family business it seems to me that the industry with similar accident rates, that is construction, might also benefit from such a system.
But why leave it as a downloadable series of questions when the technology already exists to produce risk assessments online. The development is done, the systems work, all it needs in an acceptance that the ‘two-tier’ approach to risk assessment, where the big companies have all the good stuff and the small companies, whether in construction, agriculture or not, don’t has to be addressed.
Producing risk assessments online allows the people that are new to the process to be assisted remotely by other, more experienced users, and for reviews and updates as a result of change to be easily managed. To give you an example, if a site supervisor is struggling to produce or update a risk assessment he or she can log on at the same time as the safety advisor or some other suitably experienced person, who can literally be anywhere else in the world that has internet access, and relevant and meaningful risk assessment can easily be produced. Method statements can also be produced in the same way and again the development is done, quite simply it all works and is working every day.
Do you remember the adverts about personal tax self-assessment – ‘Tax doesn’t have to be taxing’, should the same principles be applied to risk assessment? Let us as professionals provide the tools and encourage companies to make “a computation” of the “quantum of risk” but make it standardised – even at different levels
Would HM Revenue and customs accept thousands of different formats of tax assessment forms? You know the answer; and to my knowledge getting the amount wrong on your tax form has never resulted in a fatality.
It can be easy, completed online and is supported by the governing body. So ‘let’s take the ‘risk’ out of risk assessment’ make it accessible, understandable and mean something, and ultimately ‘keep people safe at work’
Labels: Risk
Arco website help desk - Need help? email: web.help@arco.co.uk © Arco Limited, Registered in England, No 133804, PO Box 21 Waverley Street, Hull HU1 2SJ.
VAT No: 166911546
