Risk Management in CanadaA. L. A. ( As low As!)

ALARP is one of the fundamental principles of risk management. We neither need nor want to manage risk to the point where we eliminate it,

because doing so is simply not a good use of resources.i.e.. The point where the costs exceed benefits. ALARP arguments are

being made for each separate 'single risk' rather than an individual's aggregate risk from all causes

A fine line in Risk combined with Due Diligence

ALARP is short for “as low as reasonably practicable”. “SFAIRP” is short for “so far as is reasonably practicable”. The two terms mean essentially the same thing and at their core is the concept of “reasonably practicable”; this involves weighing a risk against the trouble, time and money needed to control it.

Safety is Not Risk Assessment

You need the sky view to do

the ALARP even for your

company

It is the MIDDLE FOR A Reason!The "ALARP region" lies between/unacceptably high and negligible risk levels. Even if a level of risk for a "baseline case" has been judged to be in this ALARP

In a snap shot in time it looks simple

Yes it does take money and time but so due incidents and insurance

premiums plus court costsTo determine if risk is ALARP cost-benefit analysis should be made to compare the risk assessed with the money, time and efforts needed to mitigate it.

• ALARP can be considered as an attribute of goal-setting legislation versus prescriptiveone and in former the duty holder (say, employer) is responsible to demonstrate to the regulator that the risk to the personnel is ALARP.

Even a ALARP has a TOOL belt

Safety Improvement People (i.e. workers) closest to the work (i.e. processes) know best how to improve the process when given a chance to participate in how the work is accomplished. Safety processes are driven from the top, but implemented from the bottom.

A question best answered by the CEO and board of directors

ALARP seems a very reasonable way to approach the risk management since it acknowledges that never will we achieve 100% absolute safety and it is indeed an essential part of goal setting legislation. Ultimately does this not lead to a debate in which potentially human lives and injuries are translated to a monetary value? Surely if a hazard has the capability of causing x no. of human fatalities, its danger must be mitigated, no matter what the price. Or if this cost is astronomical, or if mitigation is currently impossible, do we consider it inherently unsafe? Or does that then depend on the risk involved (i.e. the probability of the hazard occurring)?

NO ALARP DOES NOT COME DOWN TO THIS

As LOW As"Reasonably practicable' is a narrower term than 'physically possible' and seems to me to imply that a computation must be made by the owner, in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale, and the sacrifice involved in the measures necessary for averting the risk (whether in money, time or trouble) is placed in the other; and that if it be shown that there is a gross disproportion between them - risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice – the defendants discharge the onus on them. Moreover, this computation falls to be made by the owner at a point of time anterior to the incident" From this expression we could denote that the risk is considered As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) when it is possible to demonstrate that the cost involved in reducing the risk further would be grossly disproportionate to the benefit gained.

The Law Plays a PART in your program and in the ALARP

Prescriptive Legislation simply refers to Statutory codes which specify exactly the conditions for compliance and often the means by which they should be achieved. This statutory code is a general code that applies to all particular organizations irrespective of the integrity or safety measures used internally within the organization.

A goal is an observable and measurable end result having one or more objectives to be achieved within a more or less fixedtimeframe. It therefore means that the goal oriented approach entails more on individual system assessment of risk and safety measures within a particular organization. Note that this applies to individual companies, since all companies are not exposed to the same level of risk.

Cost vs. Risk vs. Court = ?

Essentially it differentiates between a mitigation action being actually possible and whether that then is viable for implementation. There can't be one single perspective or instrument/document that can completely define the requirement of safety and as we have historically seen that man pushes himself further to minimize the risks and optimize safety as previous safety templates fail, it is therefore certain from scholarly perspectives and experience that both the Prescriptive and Safety case models in isolation cannot be effective.

F.E.M.A. RISK ASSESSMENT IN SAFETY

How much is Human Life Worth and WHY!

ALARP principle is so subjective and its effectivenessis mainly dependent on the policy makers/owners of the business who make a computation in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale and the sacrifice involved in the measures necessary to overcome the risk for example money, time or trouble is placed in the other'' like it has already been said, but as you all know cost reduction is vital for most companies which want to maximize profits and therefore certain good measures to reduce risk may be omitted due to the costs associated with them.

Preventable Action in RiskWhether risks are preventable or avoidable.

• considering whether the task or job is necessary,• removing the hazard,• using different substances or work processes.

If risks are not avoidable or preventable,• combating the risk at source• adapting the work to the individual, especially as regards the design

of work places, • adapting to technical progress• substituting the dangerous by the non-dangerous or the less

dangerous• developing a coherent overall prevention policy which covers

technology• giving collective protective measures priority over individual

protective measures • giving appropriate instruction to workers.

Removing high-risk behaviors from the equation will reduce the possibility of incidents

• A behavior-based safety approach contends that both safe and at-risk behaviors can be altered through reward and punishment. The caveat, however, is that employees must first have the motivation and a safety-mindset to avoid risky behaviors. Values, motivation and personality traits define a person and determine whether they will choose to avoid risk.

• To achieve this, we rely on the science of Industrial-Organizational (I-O) Psychology. I-O Psychologists are focused on the scientific study of employees, workplaces, and organizations. More importantly, their work provides empirical data to help support better hiring decisions and job performance by isolating and validating key behaviors that lead to success on the job, hence viewing the DISC system. I-O Psychologists initially direct their attention to relevant job-requirements through job analysis, which includes interviews and direct observation.

• From this over-simplified explanation of process, come the parameters of validation and the measurement of behaviors that allow us to predict job performance. In terms of predicting a safer company workplace, the focus centers on conscientiousness and compliance, predictors of work ethic and workplace rule compliance. Also, safety orientation, defined as the tendency to think and behave in ways that promote safety and prevent accidents from occurring

Where are your costs vs risks in this scope of protecting your company

A L A R P needs HELP!

Yes you really do need to consider the math and the outcome in ALARP

Required Results in your

Safety Management System

Risk Tolerance

Individuals and groups with high behaviour risk are more likely to engage in unsafe

behaviour than those that are identified as having low behaviour risk.

Our VISUALTOOLS (clues)

make us Bullet Proof

Yours and Mine = Our ProgramWith the investment made by organizations in employee training, and in complying with health and safety regulations, the inevitable question remains: why does human error still p lay such a significant part in major incidents?

To put it simply, why is the investment in training and safety compliance insufficient for avoiding major incidents and their ongoing associated cost of incidents at work?

Perhaps it’s because the most difficult safety factor to deal with – human behaviour – is not always as quantifiable as we, in the world of safety management, would like it to be.

Build your Model

Unsafe acts come from unsafe thinking. If only we can show people in advance, how unsafe their thinking is and how that leads them into danger.

Five Behaviors of Life

Follow the Plan to Gain

A pure balancing act• Not all persons perceive the same level of

risk from the same situation; persons with differing risk perceptions gather different information .

• The lower the hazard level a person believes is presented by a specific situation, the more willing that person is to engage in risky behavior related to that hazard Perceived risk affected behavior through the effect of stress.

• Clearly, like risk tolerance, an individual’s risk perception is based on multiple factors

Real Life Events Cost Everyone

Hazard Recognition does not equalRisk Tolerance

Hazard Recognition does not equalRisk Tolerance

Hazard Recognition does not equalRisk Tolerance

Hazard Recognition does not equalRisk Tolerance

Hi to LowSupervised to Non-Supervised

Hazard Recognition does not equalRisk Tolerance

Hazard Recognition does not equalRisk Tolerance

We Talk and Squawk The Rules

The Factor of Ten (10)1. Overestimating Capability/Experience ↑

2. Familiarity with the Task ↑

3. Seriousness of Outcome ↓

4. Voluntary Actions and Being in Control ↑

5. Personal Experience with an Outcome ↓

6. Cost of Non-Compliance ↓

7. Confidence in the Equipment ↑

8. Confidence in Protection and Rescue ↑

9. Potential Profit & Gain from Actions ↑

10. Role Models Accepting Risk ↑

Think the Critical Three

Employers Don’t Assume • In risk management, the choices of how to deal with risk

include an option to tolerate risk, rather than to eliminate the risk, treat the risk or transfer the risk to another party. To tolerate a risk doesn’t mean that one like to have the risk around, nor does it mean that one never means to reduce the risk or that it impossible to deal with. It simply means that from the moment, it may be impractical, unaffordable or that technology or circumstances are such that I am willing to live with the risk for the moment, and maybe even over longer periods.

• The problem arises when risks with a higher likelihood of occurrence is tolerated, or when risks with a low likelihood but potentially hi severity is tolerated because “it won’t happen to me”?

• Employers often assume that safety training facilitates safe behaviors. This assumption does not account for the role that risk tolerance plays in workplace decision-making.

Everyone Talks Everyone Walks

Conversations about Risk Tolerance and WHEN TO CONSIDER• … during Behaviour Observations• … during Stop and Think moments• … at Safety Meetings• … refresh the ‘corporate memory’• … which Influencing Factor could be impacting our decisions?

Document and ControlMany accidents can be attributed to unsafe behaviors linked to individuals (and teams) that have (in relative terms) a higher tolerance for taking unnecessary risk. Industry, and the safety profession, has recognized that reducing risk tolerance will lead to improved safe behaviors that inherently lead to a reduced number of accidents and subsequent injuries. Use the “ I “ card in life safety