Bringing risk assessments to ife by integrating with process maps Gordon Seers 1, Aan Webb 2 and Chris Thornton 3 1 Safety Management Consutant, 34 Westbury Road, Northwood HA6 3B, UK. E-mai: gordon.seers@ds.pipex.com 2 Popars Landfi Genera Manager, Biffa Waste Services Ltd 3 Miton Keynes Depot Manager, Biffa Waste Services Ltd As one of the eading integrated waste management businesses in the UK and operating from over 160 ocations nationwide, Biffa has many thousands of task-specific risk assessments. These are used by managers as input to oca operating procedures and meet statutory requirements. Foowing a tragic accident in 2006, Biffa decided to deveop process maps for a its ocations, focussing on vehice-pedestrian interactions. The methodoogy was embryonic, however most managers found that their process maps gave a much better overview of operations than their existing risk assessments, which are not very userfriendy and are sow to search. Therefore Biffa initiated a project to integrate the best features of risk assessments and process maps. The resuting Process & Risk Assessments (PRAs) used Exce spreadsheets, which are widey used throughout the company, and incuded thumbnai photographs to make them more readabe. Foowing deveopment of the methodoogy at one ocation by a safety professiona, six ocation managers vounteered to deveop piot PRAs for their own ocations. The piot site resuts were reviewed and found to be a significant improvement on the existing separate risk assessments and process maps. Phase 2 of the Process & Risk Assessment project is underway at the time of writing this paper, and is deveoping standard best practice modues which each ocation wi then use to indicate where physica constraints make it impossibe to impement the fu best practice and therefore what additiona contro measures have been put in pace. By the time of Hazards, we expect to be abe to report the resuts of phase 2. EISTING RISK ASSESSMENTS Biffa Waste Services empoys more than 5,000 empoyees, operates over 1,500 vehices and 160 operating ocations incuding coection depots, recycing faciities and andfi sites. In the eary 1990s, three-page risk assessments were introduced to assist managers to contro the risks in their operations and to meet the company s statutory requirements under the Management of Heath and Safety Reguations, subsequenty an onine one-page version was introduced to simpify the process. A typica ocation has 80 to 180 task-specific risk assessments depending on the compexity of its operations and, in tota, there are around 30,000 risk assessments on the company intranet. Each responsibe manager is required to review and update his or her risk assessments at reguar intervas, normay annuay.
PROCESS MAPPING FIRST STEPS Foowing a tragic fata incident in 2006, Biffa s Chief Executive decided that the company shoud deveop process maps for activities at its ocations. These Exce-based process maps incuded risk assessments and, where appropriate, proposas for actions to reduce risk. The initia focus was on vehice-pedestrian interactions but the scope was ater widened to a activities at each ocation. The methodoogy was embryonic and was used in some haste, however the resuting process maps were generay fet to give a more compete risk picture than existing task-based risk assessments and to have ed to worthwhie improvements. DEVELOPING INTEGRATED PROCESS MAPS AND RISK ASSESSMENTS Biffa now had two parae systems of risk assessment: The 30,000+ existing text & tabes risk assessments on the company intranet. Around 150 Exce fies each containing 5-10 process maps, dupicating some of the information from the existing risk assessments, upoaded onto the company intranet. This was obviousy unsustainabe in the medium term so the Board decided to investigate merging the two systems into one. A project team was set up comprising a heath & safety project manager, aong with representatives from the operating divisions. We first reviewed the existing risk assessment process: Linked into the company s system for tracking actions and review dates (known as the Compiance Database ). We over 500 generic risk assessments have been deveoped for common activities across the company and each ocation is required to adapt the reevant ones to their own situation, but there is no simpe way to ascertain if a specific ocation has impemented best practice. Sow to downoad from the company intranet so it is a time-consuming task for managers to review and update them. No inks between the task-specific risk assessments so it is difficut to check that no significant risks have been overooked in the gaps, especiay interactions between separate activities in adjacent areas. Output is not user-friendy and is therefore unsuitabe for use as briefing documents or toobox taks for the majority of the workforce. Simiary we reviewed the process maps: Visuay show inks between different activities so easier to review for any gaps and to discuss with operatives whether or not they accuratey represent the activities carried out in practice. Not standardised across the company so no faciity to promote best practice. Not inked into the Compiance Database so no automatic tracking of actions and review dates. 2
Therefore we set out to deveop a system of Process & Risk Assessments to combine the best features of risk assessments and process maps. If successfu, this woud then repace both systems. We deveoped the first draft based on a ocation which has three business units an industria/commercia coection depot (effectivey a heavy vehice park), a heavy vehice maintenance workshop, and a transfer station (here Biffa vehices and other customers from the oca area tip their oads, from which recycabes are recaimed and the residua waste is oaded into 44 tonne articuated trucks for despatch to andfi). During this period, Biffa had organised a series of IOSH Managing Safey courses so that was an exceent opportunity to present the eary drafts and get very usefu comments from the managers who were attending, aso the drafts were reviewed with Biffa s heath and safety professionas. As a resut of these consutations, we made significant improvements to the drafts, probaby the most significant being to incude thumbnai photographs. From this first draft, we deveoped a tempate process & risk assessment which was issued for piot impementations to be carried out by vounteer managers at six representative ocations two industria/commercia coection depots with vehice workshops, one of which incuded a secure waste recycing faciity; a municipa coection depot and workshop; a major andfi with composting and a municipa depot; a specia waste treatment pant and transfer station; and an integrated waste management faciity operated by Biffa at a customer site. At the end of the piot impementations, we hed a review meeting at which the six ocation managers presented their findings to the responsibe operating directors. They reported both the positives and negatives: Easy to foow and understand Logica process that makes you think of everything Pictures aid discussion with team and invove them Comprehensive overview of activities on site, great for training Customer positive Improved understanding of anciary pant operations HSE was positive about the approach Ony ~ ½ day required to taior the tempate at one simiar ocation Key Safe Behaviours emphasise need for reinforcement Minima IT training needs as a managers famiiar with Exce Exce fie too big and cumbersome to edit and emai (argey because the photograph fies had not been reduced in size) Significant time needed to deveop initiay Not structured to print out reevant sub-sections e.g. for project pack or for contractor working in sma area of site Without an index, not easy to find way around Repetitive e.g. PPE, sips & trips come up in many tasks Concern that the format might not be acceptabe to awyers handing an injury caim Not as good for a specia waste treatment pant as the compex risk assessments which had been deveoped ocay 3
Foowing the presentations and discussions, the operating directors recommended two important improvements: To avoid different practices at different ocations with simiar operations (party due to historica reasons foowing business acquisitions), the process & risk assessments shoud positivey promote a standard best practice approach at ocations. As far as possibe, the process & risk assessments shoud use non-technica anguage so that they can be used directy for initia induction training and refresher training without needing further materias to be deveoped. PHASE 2 PROCESS & RISK ASSESSMENTS This work is currenty in progress and best practice process & risk assessment modues are being deveoped for the activities and tasks covered in the piot impementations. These wi be reviewed by the divisiona best practice working parties and roed out for a phase 2 series of piot impementations at a different set of representative ocations than used for the phase 1 piot impementations, before being roed out across the company. Important differences from the phase 1 tempate are: Forma anguage has been repaced by more commony used anguage (e.g. Hazards has become Look out for, Make eye contact with mobie pant operative has become Eyeba the driver ). This may sound trivia but is expected to have a major impact for use in training sessions. See Figure 1. For the same reason as above, the technica parts of each process & risk assessment are now on a manager s page risk ranking; ists of key safe behaviours; references to egisation, company standards and training materias. See Figure 2. There is a forma statement of company best practices on the manager s page, with a requirement to state any issues where the oca situation prevents use of the best practice and what other measures are in pace to contro risks. By the time of HAZARDS we expect to report on experience of roing out the process & risk assessments across a of Biffa s ocations. To ro out the process & risk assessments company wide, we anticipate that each business unit manager wi probaby spend one or two days adapting the reevant modues to his or her ocation (incuding pasting in oca photographs and discussing with supervisors and workforce representatives). These wi repace the existing risk assessments and process maps, and wi aso be useabe for induction of new empoyees and toobox taks for experienced empoyees. Thereafter routine reviews (typicay annua) wi take ess time than the typica ½-day for reviewing the existing risk assessments and process maps and wi be more effective. 4
Figure 1. Process & risk assessment top page
Figure 2. Process & risk assessment manager s page 6
CONCLUSIONS For Biffa, which has arge numbers of drivers and operatives operating from many ocations and undertaking many simiar activities, changing from the existing risk assessment system to an integration of process maps with risk assessments offers the prospect of a system in which hazards are ess ikey to be overooked, which reinforces standard best practices, which is immediatey usabe for training purposes and which is ess cumbersome to review and update.