Risks Assessment Methods - Example

FV3103 Project Assignment Risks Assessment Methods Contents Contents 2 1. Introduction Risk assessment methods are one the most important elements in the process of risk management . In fire safety, the use of fire risk assessment method is critical because identification and reduction of fire risk is required by law thus should be complied properly using a reliable and accurate technique . However, since there are a number of qualified and accepted risk assessment methods, the choice of method should be based on sound judgement obtained from a comprehensive study of each methods ability to identify and demonstrate the level of fire safety risk. The following section is a fire risk assessment of a sample building using various risk assessment methods such as Graham (2012) Ticklist, SWOT (Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats), Risk Ranking, Fault Tree, Cost Benefit Analysis, and others. 2. Description of Sample Building for Assessment The subject of assessment is one-storey outpatient clinic with three medical staff, three doctors, one manager, two utility workers, one security personnel. On working days, average occupancy is 30. The daily activities in this building include patient health examination, laboratory testing, and computerised document processing. Figure 1- Sample One-Storey Office Building 3. Ticklist Table 1 – STAGE 1 -Ticklist format Graham (2012) Stage:1 – Identification of Fire Hazards No. LIST FINDINGS 1 System for controlling combustible materials and flammable liquids None 2 System operation N/A 3 Safe storage for combustible materials and flammable liquids Materials stored near west exit 4 Heater guards and location of heater Heater with guards/No CM near heater 5 Portable electrical equipment inspection and fuses With appropriate fuses/No maintenance record 6 Electrical wiring inspection Done by electrical services contractor 7 Extension leads and multi-point adapter Not often use 8 Flexes location Flexes secured/Away from damage 9 Furniture upholstery In order / Good condition. 10 Rubbish and combustible waste materials Clean/Minimal CM. 11 Smoking area with adequate ashtray No smoking allowed 12 Measures against arson 24 hours security personnel/shifting 13 Measures to prevent smoke and flames spread Fire rated doors/Fire resisting wall Table 2 - STAGE 2 - Ticklist format from Graham (2012) Stage 2- Identification of People Who Could Be at Risk No. LIST Findings 14 Sufficient number of exits and width for the number of occupants 2 exits/Width is 750mm 15 Exits leading to place of safety One to parking lot and one to secondary road in west side 16 Obstructions on escape routes and gangways No obstruction 17 Tripping and Slipping Hazards in Escape Route Non-slip tiles/No slipping hazards 18 Steps and stairs No stairs 19 Final exit Always unlocked on working days 20 Devices securing final exit No key is required from inside 21 Internal Fire Doors Labelled with automatic closer. 22 Self closers on Fire Doors Working for all doors 23 Door opening direction Final exit direction 24 Signs in Escape Routes Adequate and clear signs along corridor 25 Lighting in Escape Routes With emergency lighting 26 Evacuation plan for assisting disabled staff and visitors Formal evacuation plan for staff for assisting patients and visitor Table 3 - STAGE 3 – Ticklist format from Graham (2012) Stage 3 – Elimination. Control, & Avoidance of Fire Hazards No. LIST FINDINGS 27 Procedures and Practices for Use of Combustible Materials and Processes that use and produce heat With formal procedure 28 Consideration of cost-effective measures in preventing arson 24 hours shifting security personnel 29 Staff Training in terms of fire safety No formal training but know how to sound alarm and use fire extinguishers 30 Advice from insurer regarding fire safety Not yet done. Table 4- STAGE 4 – Ticklist format from Graham (2012) Stage 4 –Adequacy of Existing Fire Safety Procedures and Finding No. LIST FINDINGS 31 Escape lighting order and maintenance Adequate and regularly check by service contractor 32 Fire alarm condition Good condition and regular inspected by service contractor. 33 Fire alarm testing Tested on monthly basis 34 Fire alarm raising safety No safety hazard. 35 Fire Alarm Call Points Visibility and Location No obstruction / Visible 36 Number of Fire Extinguishers 5 fire extinguishers 37 Fire Extinguisher and Fire Blankets Condition and Location In good condition and conveniently accessible 38 Fire Extinguisher Servicing Fire extinguisher company/Yearly 39 Fire Fighting Installation and Automatic Fire Detection System No sprinkler/ Smoke detector in electrical room Table 5 - STAGE 5 – Ticklist format from Graham (2012) Stage 5 –Adequacy of Existing Fire Safety Procedures and Necessary Improvements No. LIST FINDINGS 40 Recording Findings of Fire Risk Assessment Record available 41 Informing staff or representatives about the findings of Risk Assessment Posted in nurse station/main entrance 42 Preparation of Formal Report Formal report is distributed to all personnel 43 Informing others about the risk identified Posted near main entrance and lounge 44 Informing the building owner about the findings of a fire risk assessment Building owner is responsive and cooperating 45 Display of Fire Action Notices Adequately posted in strategic location 46 Existence of Emergency Plan Available for major fire 47 Safekeeping of Emergency Plan Manager office 4. SWOT STRENGHT WEAKNESS No smoking policy Smoke alarm working Fire Alarm maintained/working Call Points in good condition Two exits available Five fire extinguishers Fire Doors with self closer Clear and safe escape routes Very minimal combustible materials Easily accessible extinguishers and blanket Regular servicing of fire extinguisher Adequate lighting in escape routes Opening of fire doors towards final exit Risk assessment record kept properly No storage for CM and flammable liquids With knowledge but not formally trained No advice from insurer OPPORTUNITIES THREATS One room can be use to store CM and flammable items. Fire safety training for staff can be conducted anytime No formal fire safety training can lead to confusion, panic, and casualties Absence of fire safety advice from insurer can lead to significant financial lossess. 5. Risk Ranking and F-N Table Table 6 -RISK RANKING (Cabinet Office, 2012) HIGH PROBABILITY (Likely to occur in the immediate/near future) Absence of combustible materials and flammable liquids storage will likely lead to fire. MEDIUM PROBABILITY (Will likely occur in time if not prevented) Delayed fire suppression and ineffective evacuation due to absence of formal fire safety training of staff. LOW PROBABILITY (Remote or unlikely) Arson may not be detected by security SMALL LOSS MEDIUM LOSS LARGE LOSS Table 7 –F-N Table Ranking Frequency Severity Safeguards 1 Never yet observed Negligible Invulnerability 2 Rare event Cosmetic Secure 3 Statistic exist Superficial Contained 4 Occasional Peripheral Compensative 5 Sporadic Significant Suppressive 6 Probable Structural Moderative 7 Periodic Serious Strategic 8 Regular Permanent effect Minimal 9 Likely Critical Superficial 10 Constant Catastrophic Prone 6. FMEA Item Description Function Failure Mode Failure Cause Failure Effect on Failure detection method Building People Business Storage for combustible materials and flammable items Prevent fire Absence of safe storage/ Exposed CM and FI Building owner neglect Fire damage Injuries /Death Damaged reputation Decreasing number of clients Reduced profit Unnecessary expenses Construct or assign a storage room from one of existing rooms Fire safety training Prevent fire spread and ensure effective evacuation Failure to prevent fire growth/ failure to sound alarm on time/ failure to notify and evacuate occupants Office management neglect Fire damage Injuries /Deaths Damaged reputation Decreasing number of clients Reduced profit Unnecessary expenses Conduct formal and regular fire safety training Arson prevention Prevent fire and large losses Failure of security to detect/ exposed CM and FI Ineffective security policy/ presence of easily ignitable materials Fire damage Injuries/ Deaths Damaged reputation Decreasing number of clients Reduced profit Unnecessary expenses Review security policy Remove easily ignitable materials from open access area 7. Fault Tree Codes Description NM No regular maintenance FENW Fire extinguisher not working FSNT Fire Service not notified on time CMFP Combustible materials in fire path FDF Fire doors failed NFSP No fire safety plan 8. Common Cause Analysis 9. Reliability block diagram Code Description X building fire safety wd warning devices fs fire suppression equipment ep emergency and evacuation plan fa fire safety awareness st staff training and fire drill im regular inspection and maintenance of equipment 10. Event Tree 11. Cost Benefit Analysis Sample Building Data Cost if room unavailable (£/day) Premises no. rooms typ. area (sq.m) mean inaccuracy (%) Exam Room 5 9 £200 50% Office 2 9 £200 50% Corridor 2 8 £100 50% Lounge 2 12 £100 50% Store Room 0 0 £0 50% Laboratory 1 9 £200 50% Elect. Room 1 4 £800 50% Total area (sq.m) 116 £2,800 Other data value No. clients 20 No. Med Staff 6 No. other staff 4 Location WestSide Rel. no. of fires 1.0 Calculated Costs and CBA Totals cost inaccuracy(%) uncertainty system costs £21,969 10% £2,287 risk reductions (benefits) £4,163 54% £2,250 other associated savings £32,000 8% £2,417 difference (benefits - costs) £14,194 28% £4,016 confidence: pr(+ve difference) 100% Costs (£, per year) Additional benefits (£, per year) Systems summary availability cost inaccuracy(%) uncertainty cost inaccuracy(%) uncertainty Storage Room 1 £2,580 0% £6 ~ £22,000 10% £2,200 Training 1 £11,287 18% £2,061 ~ £10,000 10% £1,000 Detection 1 £8,101 12% £990 ~ £0 0% £0 Facilities Risk Summary Baseline Risks (per year) Reduced Risks (per year) cost (£) inaccuracy (%) uncertainty (£) cost (£) inaccuracy (%) uncertainty (£) Total Risks (£, per year) £4,710 47% £2,209 £547 78% £428 Exam Room fires £558 75% £416 £39 117% £46 Office fires £2,204 75% £1,650 £156 117% £183 corridor fires £223 90% £200 £11 110% £12 lab fires £22 66% £15 £2 128% £3 Lounge fire £1,664 84% £1,394 £335 115% £384 Elect.Room Fires £39 78% £31 £3 113% £4 store room fires £0 0% £0 £0 0% £0 Total no. of fires (1/yr) 3.56E-02 1.33E-02 Fire Risk Summary Baseline Risks (per year) Reduced Risks (per year) Net Benefit (per year) cost (£) fraction cost (£) fraction cost (£) fraction Total Risks (£, per year) £4,710 100% £547 100% £4,163 100% deaths £5 0% £1 0% £5 0% injuries £66 1% £10 2% £56 1% building damage £1,313 28% £90 16% £1,223 29% contents damage £581 12% £35 6% £546 13% building unavailability £2,490 53% £403 74% £2,087 50% room unavailability £0 0% £0 0% £0 0% environmental damage £254 5% £8 2% £246 6% other Total no. of fires (1/yr) 3.56E-02 100% 1.33E-02 37% Safe Storage Room Reliability mean inaccuracy(%) uncertainty System reliability 95% 3% 3% System lifetime (years) 40 5% 2 Costs mean inaccuracy(%) uncertainty One-off costs (eg. installation) (£) £0 0% £0 Capital Recovery Factor 4.7% 2% Annual discounted costs (£) £0 2% £0 Annual costs (eg. maintenance) (£) £2,390 0% £0 Total annual costs (£) £2,390 0% £0 Benefits mean inaccuracy(%) uncertainty One-off benefits (besides risk reduction) (£) £0 0% £0 Capital Recovery Factor 4.7% 2% Annual discounted benefit (besides risk reduction) (£) £0 2% £0 Annual additional benefit (besides risk reduction) (£) £22,000 10% £2,200 Total annual benefit (besides risk reduction) (£) £22,000 10% £2,200 Fire Safety Training Reliability mean inaccuracy(%) uncertainty System reliability 98% 3% 3% System lifetime (years) 15 20% 3 Costs mean inaccuracy(%) uncertainty One-off costs (eg. installation) (£) £130,000 10% £13,000 Capital Recovery Factor 8.7% 15% Annual discounted costs (£) £11,287 18% £2,061 Annual costs (eg. maintenance) (£) £0 0% £0 Total annual costs (£) £11,287 18% £2,061 Benefits mean inaccuracy(%) uncertainty One-off benefits (besides risk reduction) (£) £0 0% £0 Capital Recovery Factor 8.7% 15% Annual discounted benefit (besides risk reduction) (£) £0 15% £0 Annual additional benefit (besides risk reduction) (£) £10,000 10% £1,000 Total annual benefit (besides risk reduction) (£) £10,000 10% £1,000 12. Reflective Comparison of the Methods The above methods used in determining the associated fire safety risk with one –storey clinic are only a few of the many methods for risk assessment. By analysis, the simplest of these methods is the Ticklist containing a checklist of fire hazards that must be identified in a certain facility. However, this does not necessarily mean that the simplest is the most useful since every method has a unique application. For instance, SWOT Analysis is a useful and logical method but it is not popular in manufacturing industry compared to Fault Tree because SWOT is intended for determining business organisations’ position over a given market rather than finding fault in the system . Similarly, Risk Ranking is best applied in situations requiring determination of risk or ranking elements of the system based on their safety significance .. As shown in Section 5, Risk Ranking clearly identified the level of probability and potential losses of the sample buildings’ fire safety concern. Its significance compared to SWOT and Ticklist is the presence of hierarchy of risks where those that are likely to occur in the near future are demonstrated. Similarly, in terms of fire risk assessment, the FMEA or Failure Mode and Effect Analysis method appears useful as it shows the various important characteristic of identified fire safety risks. For instance, aside from describing the identified fire risk areas, it also shows the function, failure mode, causes of failure, the effect and those that will be affected, as well as solution to eliminate that fire risk. However, since FMEA is in a tabular format containing fault and effects, it may be difficult and tedious to apply in complex systems that has multiple functions and components , More importantly, it needs reliability analysis skills to recognise and identify components’ failure mode thus can only be performed by skilled individual with long years of experience on a particular system . Based on experience, fault tree is a bit difficult to understand compared to Ticklist, SWOT, Risk Ranking, and FMEA. This is because Fault Tree according to , “is a craft the depends a s much on the knowledge and depth of experience , sound engineering and scientific analysis technique” . Fault Tree Analysis appears to be an intimidating method for both beginners and professional as it requires a somewhat “extraordinary and detailed” understanding of the systems being analyzed, time consuming, and extremely prone to errors . The Common Cause Analysis is actually CCFA, with “F” as failure. Therefore as demonstrated in Section 8, it evaluates multiple failures commonality or common factor shared by multiple components in terms of vulnerability .Its main benefits to analyst is identification of two or more failure scenarios that are likely to result to common system defect. As shown in Section 8, CCFA took the result of all different risk assessment method and collect the common vulnerabilities found. It then processed these vulnerabilities, sum up the generic causes, and formulate a solution for it. Although convincing, the problem with CCFA is the time and resource consuming use of multiple assessment method to find the underlying cause of the problem. The Reliability Block Diagram on the other is similar to Fault Tree but a little less intimidating. It is often used to model the effect of item failures on system performance . As shown in Section 9, the complete attainment of “X” is dependent on the reliability of each block in the system that in this case is the safety of sample building from fire. Since, X, (as opposed to a series system where the failure of one block result to complete failure), is in a parallel system of blocks, it can still succeed if one or two blocks fail . For instance, the failure of “wd” in a small building will not greatly affect “X” since fire can be detected other means such as people. The Event Tree or ET in Section 10 is almost similar to Reliability Block Diagram except that ET is focused on events rather than reliability of each component. However, the concept that created ET is its major limitation as it its identification of causes is limited by one initiating event . As shown in the ET diagram in Section 8, if the fire event occur and not detected, the subsequent events is either fire suppression or fire spread. It does not facilitate partial successes or failures, opportunities, reliability of components, and others thus it is likely end before the final consequences are reached . Finally, the CBA or Cost Benefit Analysis is more like an accounting method but it serves a lot purpose and based data that are statistically significant. For instance, as shown in Section 11, CBA can provide building owners with convincing data on the feasibility of building a safe storage room for combustible materials in terms of financial gains resulting from reduced probability of fire. However, although it is quite impressive and detailed, risk assessment is about identifying risks thus not helpful in this context. In summary, as mentioned earlier, Risk Ranking is more useful in terms of convenience, understanding probability and prioritization of risks, and knowledge of severity of the consequences. 13. Allocating fixed budget to respond to the risks as assessed The time and cost-effectiveness, accuracy, and relevance to fire safety is the primary consideration when a risk assessment method is selected. Therefore, the risk assessed through this method is reliable and deserve immediate action, First, the result of the assessment with be the primary justification for budget request. Second, a cost benefit analysis will be conducted to support the risks in terms of feasibility. and finances. Third and last, the fixed budget will be allocated to the most probable and likely to cause significant losses (combustible materials without safe storage) and to other risks that are likely to effect the safety system in the near future. 14. References Abran, A., Braungarten, R., Dumke, R. R., Cuadrado-Gallego, J. J. & Brunekreef, J. (2009). Software Process and Product Measurement: International Conferences IWSM 2009 and Mensura 2009 Amsterdam, The Netherlands, November 4-6, 2009. Proceedings, Springer ABS (2002). Marine Safety: Tools for Risk-Based Decision Making, Government Institutes, US.US DCLG, U. (2006). Fire Safety Risk Assessment, Department for Communities and Local Government.UK Ferrell, O. C. & Hartline, M. (2010). Marketing Strategy, Cengage Learning Fickelscherer, R. J. & Chester, D. L. (2012). Optimal Automated Process Fault Analysis, Wiley Goble, W. M. (2010). Control Systems Safety Evaluation and Reliability, International Society of Automation Hartford, D. N. D., Baecher, G. B. & Group, C. T. D. S. I. (2004). Risk and Uncertainty in Dam Safety, Thomas Telford Melnick, E. L. & Everitt, B. S. (2008). Encyclopedia of Quantitative Risk Analysis and Assessment, Wiley Modarres, M. (1992). What Every Engineer Should Know about Reliability and Risk Analysis, Taylor & Francis Modarres, M., Kaminskiy, M. & Krivtsov, V. (1999). Reliability Engineering and Risk Analysis: A Practical Guide, Taylor & Francis Perry, R. C. & Bacon, D. (2006). Commercializing Great Products with Design for Six Sigma, Pearson Education Rausand, M. (2013). Risk Assessment: Theory, Methods, and Applications, Wiley Stamatis, D. H. (2003). Failure Mode and Effect Analysis: Fmea from Theory to Execution, American Society for Quality Stephans, R. A. (2012). System Safety for the 21st Century: The Updated and Revised Edition of System Safety 2000, Wiley  Read More