This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Can anyone share with me with a template risk assessment suitable for school group doing some sport routes? The idea of starting from scratch is terrifying...
Thanks,
Tintin
Thanks,
Tintin
In reply to Just Tintin:
Writing a risk assessment shouldn't be terrifying! When it's done right, it should help you understand how you are going to manage your group in order to reduce the risks. It's only the (largely mythical) influence of 'Elf'n'Safety' that makes it intimidating.
I could email you some of mine to look over, but honestly I think 90% of the point is in writing it yourself - that's what makes you think about what you're going to do.
So, try this: divide your day up into parts. You're probably going to want to think about transport there, the walk-in, the actual climbing part, and managing slack time (ie when they're not climbing, so lunchtime, when you're rigging, etc).
Open up Word and create a table with 6 columns. For each part in turn, write down a list of what could go wrong - ie what are the hazards?
The write down how likely each event would be. I wouldn't go any more complex than High/Medium/Low/Very low. And then how bad each event would be - the severity. Again H/M/L/VL is fine.
Then - and this is the important column - write down what you're going to do to reduce either the likelihood of each event occuring, or its severity, or both.
The note down the new likelihoods and severity, now you've implemented your control methods. As long as no event is more than medium or high likelihood AND severity, you're probably fine.
So, as an example of one complete row, there might be an RTA in the minibus on the way there. Liklihood is low, severity is high. To control it I will make sure all the kids have their seatbelts on, the driver will have passed the minibus assessment, perhaps a second MoS will be there to stop kids distacting the driver. Now the severity remains high, but the likelihood is very low.
Do this for every hazard you can think of, and you've just written a risk assessment. And it'll be much more specific to your day, and much more liekly to be followed, than if you'd just downloaded one. I'd far rather someone gave me a personalised RA that they've put thought into.
A few things not to miss - effects of heat and cold and thirst, especially if the destination is out of the way. Minor scrapes and cuts (many times more likely than a big fall). Protecting kids from rockfall during lunch.
Have fun! If you want, I can have a look over when you've done it (if you haven't guessed, this used to be my job).
Writing a risk assessment shouldn't be terrifying! When it's done right, it should help you understand how you are going to manage your group in order to reduce the risks. It's only the (largely mythical) influence of 'Elf'n'Safety' that makes it intimidating.
I could email you some of mine to look over, but honestly I think 90% of the point is in writing it yourself - that's what makes you think about what you're going to do.
So, try this: divide your day up into parts. You're probably going to want to think about transport there, the walk-in, the actual climbing part, and managing slack time (ie when they're not climbing, so lunchtime, when you're rigging, etc).
Open up Word and create a table with 6 columns. For each part in turn, write down a list of what could go wrong - ie what are the hazards?
The write down how likely each event would be. I wouldn't go any more complex than High/Medium/Low/Very low. And then how bad each event would be - the severity. Again H/M/L/VL is fine.
Then - and this is the important column - write down what you're going to do to reduce either the likelihood of each event occuring, or its severity, or both.
The note down the new likelihoods and severity, now you've implemented your control methods. As long as no event is more than medium or high likelihood AND severity, you're probably fine.
So, as an example of one complete row, there might be an RTA in the minibus on the way there. Liklihood is low, severity is high. To control it I will make sure all the kids have their seatbelts on, the driver will have passed the minibus assessment, perhaps a second MoS will be there to stop kids distacting the driver. Now the severity remains high, but the likelihood is very low.
Do this for every hazard you can think of, and you've just written a risk assessment. And it'll be much more specific to your day, and much more liekly to be followed, than if you'd just downloaded one. I'd far rather someone gave me a personalised RA that they've put thought into.
A few things not to miss - effects of heat and cold and thirst, especially if the destination is out of the way. Minor scrapes and cuts (many times more likely than a big fall). Protecting kids from rockfall during lunch.
Have fun! If you want, I can have a look over when you've done it (if you haven't guessed, this used to be my job).
13
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:
Very nice Jamie. Beautifully explained & a generous offer of help. Karma points earnt.
Very nice Jamie. Beautifully explained & a generous offer of help. Karma points earnt.
1
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:
Another variation on formatting this that I've used sometimes is to rate likelihood & severity as a number, multiply them together, and have a maximum that that number is allowed to be.
Another variation on formatting this that I've used sometimes is to rate likelihood & severity as a number, multiply them together, and have a maximum that that number is allowed to be.
1
In reply to Just Tintin:
Exactly what Jamie said.
Plus for smaller kids risk of falliing out of harness if inverted - use full body harness for small kids with slim hips.
Not sure if yours are small enough for this.
Also some thoughts on supervision of any spare kids. Either get them involved tagging ropes or have someone else supervising them and keeping them out ofmmischief or danger.
Exactly what Jamie said.
Plus for smaller kids risk of falliing out of harness if inverted - use full body harness for small kids with slim hips.
Not sure if yours are small enough for this.
Also some thoughts on supervision of any spare kids. Either get them involved tagging ropes or have someone else supervising them and keeping them out ofmmischief or danger.
In reply to marsbar:
I agree that the numbers are subjective, but it's a very common way of doing RAs!
It comes from systems where you want to flag "Low" probability of "Building completely falling down" as not acceptable, whereas thresholds will go "It's lowish probability, it'll be fine."
> I don't like this as the numbers are subjective not objective.
I agree that the numbers are subjective, but it's a very common way of doing RAs!
It comes from systems where you want to flag "Low" probability of "Building completely falling down" as not acceptable, whereas thresholds will go "It's lowish probability, it'll be fine."
Post edited at 17:06
In reply to marsbar:
It's assessment not factual prediction; by definition it is subjective. Besides the values are irrelevant,what matters is how they relate to eachother.
It's assessment not factual prediction; by definition it is subjective. Besides the values are irrelevant,what matters is how they relate to eachother.
2
In reply to Just Tintin:
Risk benefit analysis is a very good way of doing RA's.
I've seen some RA's that really are tick-box exercises and are so complex they make me weep - they should be simple and to the point, not something done to placate someone high up you've mitigated the risk of every little possibility.
Risk benefit analysis is a very good way of doing RA's.
I've seen some RA's that really are tick-box exercises and are so complex they make me weep - they should be simple and to the point, not something done to placate someone high up you've mitigated the risk of every little possibility.
In reply to marsbar:
Are you sure you understand 'subjective' and 'objective'? The former is an estimate, an opinion. The latter uses measurable numbers, statistics, etc.
Both 'very low/low/medium/high/very high' and '1-5' are subjective, since you're making estimates.
Multiplicative risk analysis (the standard technique) is easy if severity and likelihood are numeric. It's quite hard to multiply 'low' by 'medium'.
I put both notations in the columns...
Measures can be split into 'preventing'; what you're going to do to reduce the likelihood of the hazard occurring, and 'mitigating'; what you're going to do to reduce the severity if it does occur. From these measures, you can extract preparatory tasks, tasks to do during the event, tasks to do if something goes wrong, policy, training requirements, procedures, equipment lists, checklists, etc.
Don't think of a risk assessment as a box-ticking exercise; think it as the essential core of your entire activity. Done properly, a RA should tell you everything you need to prepare and do. Barring the actual instruction... And even quite a bit of what you need to teach will drop out of the assessment, if you do an assessment of the climbing task as well.
> I don't like this as the numbers are subjective not objective.
Are you sure you understand 'subjective' and 'objective'? The former is an estimate, an opinion. The latter uses measurable numbers, statistics, etc.
Both 'very low/low/medium/high/very high' and '1-5' are subjective, since you're making estimates.
Multiplicative risk analysis (the standard technique) is easy if severity and likelihood are numeric. It's quite hard to multiply 'low' by 'medium'.
I put both notations in the columns...
Measures can be split into 'preventing'; what you're going to do to reduce the likelihood of the hazard occurring, and 'mitigating'; what you're going to do to reduce the severity if it does occur. From these measures, you can extract preparatory tasks, tasks to do during the event, tasks to do if something goes wrong, policy, training requirements, procedures, equipment lists, checklists, etc.
Don't think of a risk assessment as a box-ticking exercise; think it as the essential core of your entire activity. Done properly, a RA should tell you everything you need to prepare and do. Barring the actual instruction... And even quite a bit of what you need to teach will drop out of the assessment, if you do an assessment of the climbing task as well.
Post edited at 19:54
1
In reply to Just Tintin:
I'd have to say that trying to assign any sort of numeric values would have been way beyond what I'd have asked a member of staff to do. All I wanted to see was that they'd though really hard about how the sh1t might hit the fan, and what they could do to either prevent it or reduce the mess it'd make!
I think once you get to the point of measuring risk in any meaningful way, you've left risk assessment behind and you're doing actuarial work. I very deliberately never defined what I meant by H/M/L/VL.
Oh, and as for occupying spare pupils whilst the climbing is going on - the bell-ringing method of belaying is brilliant. I know it's disparaged as not teaching 'proper' belay technique, but as a way of tying up (pun intended) lots of kids at once, it's really useful. And it leaves you with both hands free, either to deal with problems or to get your lunch down your throat.
I'd have to say that trying to assign any sort of numeric values would have been way beyond what I'd have asked a member of staff to do. All I wanted to see was that they'd though really hard about how the sh1t might hit the fan, and what they could do to either prevent it or reduce the mess it'd make!
I think once you get to the point of measuring risk in any meaningful way, you've left risk assessment behind and you're doing actuarial work. I very deliberately never defined what I meant by H/M/L/VL.
Oh, and as for occupying spare pupils whilst the climbing is going on - the bell-ringing method of belaying is brilliant. I know it's disparaged as not teaching 'proper' belay technique, but as a way of tying up (pun intended) lots of kids at once, it's really useful. And it leaves you with both hands free, either to deal with problems or to get your lunch down your throat.
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:
Numeric values aren't 'actuarial', as they are not probabilities based on any measured statistics, unlike actuarial calculations); they are simply abstract values from 1-5, with 1 being 'very low' and 5 being 'very high'. But it's useful to have some rough scale for severity. For instance, something like this:
1 - very low - minor scrapes and bruises
2 - low - cuts, or other injury that will heal with no long-term effect
3 - medium - injury that might leave permanent minor scar
4 - high - injury that could cause minor disability
5 - very high - major disability, death
You'll probably find yourself thinking 'death' for quite a lot of hazards, because it's true. So I have made multiple entries for some hazards, considering the different likelihoods and severities. This may be a bit OTT, but it made sure I didn't unconsciously scale the severity by the likelihood; if death is a possible outcome, state that it is (an important consideration of multiplicative risk assessment (MRA)). e.g. slips, trips and falls that cause minor injuries are quite likely, but there's a very low likelihood they may cause death.
Having said all that, HSE guidance has moved away from MRA to 'thinking hard' about what you're doing, and what might go wrong, how to prevent it, and how to deal with it. Plenty of other fields still use MRA, though: COSHH, INFOSEC Assurance, etc. So it's by no means 'the wrong technique'.
> I'd have to say that trying to assign any sort of numeric values would have been way beyond what I'd have asked a member of staff to do.
Numeric values aren't 'actuarial', as they are not probabilities based on any measured statistics, unlike actuarial calculations); they are simply abstract values from 1-5, with 1 being 'very low' and 5 being 'very high'. But it's useful to have some rough scale for severity. For instance, something like this:
1 - very low - minor scrapes and bruises
2 - low - cuts, or other injury that will heal with no long-term effect
3 - medium - injury that might leave permanent minor scar
4 - high - injury that could cause minor disability
5 - very high - major disability, death
You'll probably find yourself thinking 'death' for quite a lot of hazards, because it's true. So I have made multiple entries for some hazards, considering the different likelihoods and severities. This may be a bit OTT, but it made sure I didn't unconsciously scale the severity by the likelihood; if death is a possible outcome, state that it is (an important consideration of multiplicative risk assessment (MRA)). e.g. slips, trips and falls that cause minor injuries are quite likely, but there's a very low likelihood they may cause death.
Having said all that, HSE guidance has moved away from MRA to 'thinking hard' about what you're doing, and what might go wrong, how to prevent it, and how to deal with it. Plenty of other fields still use MRA, though: COSHH, INFOSEC Assurance, etc. So it's by no means 'the wrong technique'.
Post edited at 23:05
1
In reply to Just Tintin:
Drop me an email via the forum if you'd like a template. I would agree with other comments that working through the process is the best way of learning but having a framework to structure your thoughts on can be quite helpful.
Drop me an email via the forum if you'd like a template. I would agree with other comments that working through the process is the best way of learning but having a framework to structure your thoughts on can be quite helpful.
In reply to captain paranoia:
I may have misunderstood totally but it seems you are agreeing with me. The numbers are subjective. I understand what subjective is and that is why I said that they are subjective.
As for disliking that method, that is my opinion. So also subjective.
I also appreciate and understand that you can't multiply 2 words together. Its nonsense. So assigning numerical values to words and multiplying them is (in my opinion) not the best idea. It seems like what I like to call "management bollox". Managers like to have a number to prove things are all fine. They don't care how you got the number or how valid it is as long as the number says yes.
Words are more obviously subjective and less open to this kind of manipulated false assumed accuracy. You seem aware that multplying 2 subjective numbers won't give an objective answer but most people see a number and think it must be exact.
Like I said, my opinion. I am aware it is common practice but that doesn't make it beyond criticism.
You could get the same result by using a grid without adding numbers into the issue.
> Are you sure you understand 'subjective' and 'objective'? The former is an estimate, an opinion. The latter uses measurable numbers, statistics, etc.
> Both 'very low/low/medium/high/very high' and '1-5' are subjective, since you're making estimates.
I may have misunderstood totally but it seems you are agreeing with me. The numbers are subjective. I understand what subjective is and that is why I said that they are subjective.
As for disliking that method, that is my opinion. So also subjective.
I also appreciate and understand that you can't multiply 2 words together. Its nonsense. So assigning numerical values to words and multiplying them is (in my opinion) not the best idea. It seems like what I like to call "management bollox". Managers like to have a number to prove things are all fine. They don't care how you got the number or how valid it is as long as the number says yes.
Words are more obviously subjective and less open to this kind of manipulated false assumed accuracy. You seem aware that multplying 2 subjective numbers won't give an objective answer but most people see a number and think it must be exact.
Like I said, my opinion. I am aware it is common practice but that doesn't make it beyond criticism.
You could get the same result by using a grid without adding numbers into the issue.
1
In reply to marsbar:
You are right, and the primary focus of the exercise is to identify and mitigate the hazards, rather than actually "assessing"them.
You are right, and the primary focus of the exercise is to identify and mitigate the hazards, rather than actually "assessing"them.
In reply to marsbar:
You must work where I do, although now we use green, yellow and red numbers.
> It seems like what I like to call "management bollox". Managers like to have a number to prove things are all fine. They don't care how you got the number or how valid it is as long as the number says yes.
You must work where I do, although now we use green, yellow and red numbers.
In reply to marsbar:
You're right of.course that numbers give a spurious impression of accuracy if too much weight is put on them. But aren't they a convenient way of getting estimates of *relative* risk? Eg 3*2 is more of a worry that. 4*1?
You're right of.course that numbers give a spurious impression of accuracy if too much weight is put on them. But aren't they a convenient way of getting estimates of *relative* risk? Eg 3*2 is more of a worry that. 4*1?
In reply to marsbar:
What is the problem with it being subjective? Assessments are not facts; by definition they are subjective.
What is the problem with it being subjective? Assessments are not facts; by definition they are subjective.
In reply to climbwhenready:
But you might well, in climbing, have:
Risk: Death due to fall
Probability: Low because top-ropes will be in use and good quality anchors are available.
Which is OK, is it not? You can't *remove* that risk. Indeed, the risk of death in the car on the way there is probably higher if what you're planning is top-roping easy routes.
One difficulty is deciding where you stop i.e.
Risk: death in road accident
Probability: low-medium
Mitigation: hire professional drivers, insist Volvos are used
Most people would think that unnecessary - but road transport is one of the most risky things we do on a day to day basis (in terms of the chance of death).
But everyone knows road transport is dangerous. The benefit of it all, really (CYA writing down aside) is of identifying risks you hadn't thought of, and ways of mitigating ones you had thought of that you hadn't considered. Basically a brainstorming tool. Which is why I oppose printing other peoples' out - though it is probably a good idea to look at someone else's *after* doing yours to see if you missed anything.
Indeed, in Scouting, with a few exceptions, you are not required to write them down - just to properly communicate the control measures.
Neil
But you might well, in climbing, have:
Risk: Death due to fall
Probability: Low because top-ropes will be in use and good quality anchors are available.
Which is OK, is it not? You can't *remove* that risk. Indeed, the risk of death in the car on the way there is probably higher if what you're planning is top-roping easy routes.
One difficulty is deciding where you stop i.e.
Risk: death in road accident
Probability: low-medium
Mitigation: hire professional drivers, insist Volvos are used
Most people would think that unnecessary - but road transport is one of the most risky things we do on a day to day basis (in terms of the chance of death).
But everyone knows road transport is dangerous. The benefit of it all, really (CYA writing down aside) is of identifying risks you hadn't thought of, and ways of mitigating ones you had thought of that you hadn't considered. Basically a brainstorming tool. Which is why I oppose printing other peoples' out - though it is probably a good idea to look at someone else's *after* doing yours to see if you missed anything.
Indeed, in Scouting, with a few exceptions, you are not required to write them down - just to properly communicate the control measures.
Neil
Post edited at 09:34
In reply to Just Tintin:
I am an inspector for AALS and LOtC and I can say categorically that we dislike RAs with numbers. They are not objective they are simply your subjective "feeling" of the risk. It is identical with using words. The rest is arithmetic, if that is based on and original subjective assessment it is also subjective. Remember that you have to risk assess the likely dangers, not every danger. There is a possibility that a satellite could fall out of the sky and ruin your day, however this is not something that is likely to be in your RA. Think of the twin towers, nobody expected idiots to fly planes into them until it happened and thus it was never risk assessed. Now that we know it can happen we have to take it into account, but what is the likelihood that terrorists are gong to target your scout group?
Of more importance is what competence the leaders will have to properly supervise the activity. Note I don't say qualifications but competence. If something went wrong you would have to justify why you thought you were competent.
If you want to pm me I will happily chat as I am also a scout mountaineering adviser.
Doug
I am an inspector for AALS and LOtC and I can say categorically that we dislike RAs with numbers. They are not objective they are simply your subjective "feeling" of the risk. It is identical with using words. The rest is arithmetic, if that is based on and original subjective assessment it is also subjective. Remember that you have to risk assess the likely dangers, not every danger. There is a possibility that a satellite could fall out of the sky and ruin your day, however this is not something that is likely to be in your RA. Think of the twin towers, nobody expected idiots to fly planes into them until it happened and thus it was never risk assessed. Now that we know it can happen we have to take it into account, but what is the likelihood that terrorists are gong to target your scout group?
Of more importance is what competence the leaders will have to properly supervise the activity. Note I don't say qualifications but competence. If something went wrong you would have to justify why you thought you were competent.
If you want to pm me I will happily chat as I am also a scout mountaineering adviser.
Doug
In reply to oggi:
That is interesting, any reason why the AALS don't like numbers as I'd have thought the DWP and HSE would encourage them?
A multiplied risk and severity scoring system is certainly encouraged in all of the risk assessment training I have received.
That is interesting, any reason why the AALS don't like numbers as I'd have thought the DWP and HSE would encourage them?
A multiplied risk and severity scoring system is certainly encouraged in all of the risk assessment training I have received.
In reply to Reach>Talent:
RA evaluation has moved on from numbers for all the reasons Doug explained
Here's HSE's current advice http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/controlling-risks.htm
RA evaluation has moved on from numbers for all the reasons Doug explained
Here's HSE's current advice http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/controlling-risks.htm
In reply to oggi:
That isn't really what 'subjective' means. A 'feeling' can be used to estimate a real-world quantity, in which case it is objective, It may suffer from large bias, or lack of precision, but that isn't the same as subjectivity. In this case, using a risk multiplied by a consequence is an attempt to make an objective assessment of the mean cost per incidence of activity.
I suspect that the problem is more to do with the fact that the scoring scales are ordinal. i.e. under that system, a 3 multiplied by a 2 is not necessarily the same as a 2 multiplied by a 3 for the real-word quantity that you are interested in. I can't see that it is worse than any other (realistic) method except that is, perhaps, gives the illusion of precision rather than just providing a convenient way to think of things that might go wrong.
> I am an inspector for AALS and LOtC and I can say categorically that we dislike RAs with numbers. They are not objective they are simply your subjective "feeling" of the risk. It is identical with using words. The rest is arithmetic, if that is based on and original subjective assessment it is also subjective.
That isn't really what 'subjective' means. A 'feeling' can be used to estimate a real-world quantity, in which case it is objective, It may suffer from large bias, or lack of precision, but that isn't the same as subjectivity. In this case, using a risk multiplied by a consequence is an attempt to make an objective assessment of the mean cost per incidence of activity.
I suspect that the problem is more to do with the fact that the scoring scales are ordinal. i.e. under that system, a 3 multiplied by a 2 is not necessarily the same as a 2 multiplied by a 3 for the real-word quantity that you are interested in. I can't see that it is worse than any other (realistic) method except that is, perhaps, gives the illusion of precision rather than just providing a convenient way to think of things that might go wrong.
Post edited at 12:48
In reply to Just Tintin:
Interested in the objective being the kids doing some sport routes. Do you intend for the kids to lead and if so this increases the potential risk massively compared to bottom roping and the level of competency of the kids (experience etc) and the adults looking after them. Also if its UK based then most sport venues with beginner routes are going to involve the risk of falling loose rock.
Interested in the objective being the kids doing some sport routes. Do you intend for the kids to lead and if so this increases the potential risk massively compared to bottom roping and the level of competency of the kids (experience etc) and the adults looking after them. Also if its UK based then most sport venues with beginner routes are going to involve the risk of falling loose rock.
In reply to robandian:
Extremely comfortable ratio of 2 qualified staff and an experienced helper to 3 pupils (aged 14-17).
They're going to bottom rope, but will practice taking out the draws as an in between step.
Extremely comfortable ratio of 2 qualified staff and an experienced helper to 3 pupils (aged 14-17).
They're going to bottom rope, but will practice taking out the draws as an in between step.
In reply to marsbar:
Probability* can already be expressed as a number, and it is perfectly reasonable to assign a number to severity. Risk is a combination of liklihood and severity hence multiplying them together makes reasonable sense, which is why this is a widely adopted method.
Probability* can already be expressed as a number, and it is perfectly reasonable to assign a number to severity. Risk is a combination of liklihood and severity hence multiplying them together makes reasonable sense, which is why this is a widely adopted method.
In reply to marsbar:
Sorry if my post sounded like I was asking "are you stupid?"; that wasn't my intent, and I know from your posts that you aren't.
Yes, it is possible for the numbers to be interpreted as objective values by someone who is unfamiliar with the technique, but that's a fault with the ignorant manager, not the technique. MRA really isn't management bullshit if used correctly, and gives just as meaningful results as textual ratings. The numbers/ratings are only there as a process aid; to help you think about risks, and what risks you need to do something about. I look at the severity and the risk, and consider preventive and mitigating actions if the severity is high, even if the likelihood is low. This might not be the 'classic approach', but it means I am thinking about things. So the process has served its purpose.
The potential misinterpretation of numbers may be why HSE has dropped the MRA approach. But I'm used to using it in other areas of my professional work, and don't get confused. In this work, I follow the conventional process a little more strictly, because the severity and likelihood ratings have semi-formal definitions. But again, interpretation of the results is not fixed, and the purpose of the process is still to help think about the risks, and how to address them.
The important thing, whatever process we choose to use, is that we think through all phases of the activity, identify hazards, assess risk and come up with appropriate and reasonable preventive and mitigating measures. It's also important that everyone involved understands that we cannot eliminate risk, except by not doing the activity at all.
ps. I'm lucky in that I don't have idiots for managers, and the people who read my risk assessments understand how they are performed, and what the numbers mean, and what they don't mean.
Sorry if my post sounded like I was asking "are you stupid?"; that wasn't my intent, and I know from your posts that you aren't.
Yes, it is possible for the numbers to be interpreted as objective values by someone who is unfamiliar with the technique, but that's a fault with the ignorant manager, not the technique. MRA really isn't management bullshit if used correctly, and gives just as meaningful results as textual ratings. The numbers/ratings are only there as a process aid; to help you think about risks, and what risks you need to do something about. I look at the severity and the risk, and consider preventive and mitigating actions if the severity is high, even if the likelihood is low. This might not be the 'classic approach', but it means I am thinking about things. So the process has served its purpose.
The potential misinterpretation of numbers may be why HSE has dropped the MRA approach. But I'm used to using it in other areas of my professional work, and don't get confused. In this work, I follow the conventional process a little more strictly, because the severity and likelihood ratings have semi-formal definitions. But again, interpretation of the results is not fixed, and the purpose of the process is still to help think about the risks, and how to address them.
The important thing, whatever process we choose to use, is that we think through all phases of the activity, identify hazards, assess risk and come up with appropriate and reasonable preventive and mitigating measures. It's also important that everyone involved understands that we cannot eliminate risk, except by not doing the activity at all.
ps. I'm lucky in that I don't have idiots for managers, and the people who read my risk assessments understand how they are performed, and what the numbers mean, and what they don't mean.
Post edited at 18:15
In reply to Just Tintin:
The other thing we use is an 'analytical' risk assessment at the start of our activities. This is a tick sheet with a load of categories... In our case e.g beach state.. Debris, seaweed, stones and hard objects, other beach users... And we rate each one on a caution, change, stop rating. If we rate something as change we record how we have modified the activity. If it's stop.. We stop. . Is a five minute job at the start of every session. It shows we have recorded our review of the current conditions, but just thought about what might happen on any day.
Do others use this method as well for other areas than lifeguard?
The other thing we use is an 'analytical' risk assessment at the start of our activities. This is a tick sheet with a load of categories... In our case e.g beach state.. Debris, seaweed, stones and hard objects, other beach users... And we rate each one on a caution, change, stop rating. If we rate something as change we record how we have modified the activity. If it's stop.. We stop. . Is a five minute job at the start of every session. It shows we have recorded our review of the current conditions, but just thought about what might happen on any day.
Do others use this method as well for other areas than lifeguard?
In reply to Just Tintin:
Ask your LEA outdoor education department. Ours have all that on their website to download.
Ask your LEA outdoor education department. Ours have all that on their website to download.
In reply to MG:
I pointed out at work their numerical system had a 50:50 chance of death once or twice a year as 'continue, but review at next available opportunity'. I didn't think this was helpful.
Rather than just changing the scales, they went for deep thinking.. Which has its own issues. people spent loads of time on minor risks that occasionally happened, and not much on more major, but less frequent occurrences.
I pointed out at work their numerical system had a 50:50 chance of death once or twice a year as 'continue, but review at next available opportunity'. I didn't think this was helpful.
Rather than just changing the scales, they went for deep thinking.. Which has its own issues. people spent loads of time on minor risks that occasionally happened, and not much on more major, but less frequent occurrences.
In reply to captain paranoia:
ps. I'm lucky in that I don't have idiots for managers, and the people who read my risk assessments understand how they are performed, and what the numbers mean, and what they don't mean.
That could be my issue.
I tend to assume all managers are dozy until otherwise proven.
ps. I'm lucky in that I don't have idiots for managers, and the people who read my risk assessments understand how they are performed, and what the numbers mean, and what they don't mean.
That could be my issue.
I tend to assume all managers are dozy until otherwise proven.
In reply to marsbar:
Likelihood, probability and chance are words for the same concept. They can be used in an objective mathematical/statistical sense, or in a more abstract, vernacular sense. A risk assessment uses the latter sense, using a relative scale.
Despite the fact that it's only a relative scale, and not an objective, measured probability derived from analysis of accident statistics within a population, it is still appropriate to multiply the likelihood and severity to estimate risk; the bigger the number, the greater the risk of harm, in a relative scale.
It's not a wrong method, and neither is a non-MRA method (e.g. as suggested by the HSE). Provided a method works, it really doesn't matter; it's the process and the measures arising from that process that matter, not the assessment document itself. Sadly, it's the RA that is often waved as 'proof that an activity is safe', when it is nothing of the sort. It's only by implementing the measures that we reduce the risk, but it will never make things '100% safe'.
Likelihood, probability and chance are words for the same concept. They can be used in an objective mathematical/statistical sense, or in a more abstract, vernacular sense. A risk assessment uses the latter sense, using a relative scale.
Despite the fact that it's only a relative scale, and not an objective, measured probability derived from analysis of accident statistics within a population, it is still appropriate to multiply the likelihood and severity to estimate risk; the bigger the number, the greater the risk of harm, in a relative scale.
It's not a wrong method, and neither is a non-MRA method (e.g. as suggested by the HSE). Provided a method works, it really doesn't matter; it's the process and the measures arising from that process that matter, not the assessment document itself. Sadly, it's the RA that is often waved as 'proof that an activity is safe', when it is nothing of the sort. It's only by implementing the measures that we reduce the risk, but it will never make things '100% safe'.
In reply to captain paranoia:
I know you are right. Its not that i think you are wrong, I just don't like it as a method, it sort of feels wrong? I am somwhat on the spectrum and tend to be a bit literal when I interpret things. I can't explain it any better than that. I'm aware it not.
I know you are right. Its not that i think you are wrong, I just don't like it as a method, it sort of feels wrong? I am somwhat on the spectrum and tend to be a bit literal when I interpret things. I can't explain it any better than that. I'm aware it not.
In reply to Just Tintin:
Looks like the thread has moved away from your original question, but if you're looking for some inspiration then the MCofS has template RAs that it makes available to clubs who are interested. They also run a lot of courses for kids (realrock program) so would definitely be able to advise on content as well to stop you heading down the wrong route to begin with. Get in touch with them via their website and see what they say.
Might help with any additional justification for the format and content as well if you can say it conforms to that used with national representative body and has been developed with their input / assistance.
Cheers,
Stuart
Looks like the thread has moved away from your original question, but if you're looking for some inspiration then the MCofS has template RAs that it makes available to clubs who are interested. They also run a lot of courses for kids (realrock program) so would definitely be able to advise on content as well to stop you heading down the wrong route to begin with. Get in touch with them via their website and see what they say.
Might help with any additional justification for the format and content as well if you can say it conforms to that used with national representative body and has been developed with their input / assistance.
Cheers,
Stuart
In reply to marsbar:
That's fine; you have a process that works for you, and it's following the process and outcomes that are important, not the fine detail of the process itself.
We're all somewhere on the spectrum... Which is why some of us spend ages arguing the toss about fine-grained detail when we essentially agree...
> I just don't like it as a method, it sort of feels wrong?
That's fine; you have a process that works for you, and it's following the process and outcomes that are important, not the fine detail of the process itself.
> I am somwhat on the spectrum
We're all somewhere on the spectrum... Which is why some of us spend ages arguing the toss about fine-grained detail when we essentially agree...
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...