Risk Engineering Body of Knowledge
Engineers Australia with the support of the Risk Engineering Society have embarked on a project to develop a Risk Engineering Book of Knowledge (REBoK). Register to join the community.
The first REBoK session, delivered by Warren Black, considered the domain of risk and risk engineering in the context risk management generally. It described the commonly available processes and the way they were used.
Following the initial presentation, Warren was joined by R2A Partner, Richard Robinson and Peter Flanagan to answer participant questions. Richard was asked to (again) explain the difference between ALARP (as low as reasonably practicable) and SFAIRP (so far as is reasonably practicable).
The difference between ALARP and SFAIRP and due diligence is a topic we have written about a number of times over the years. As there continues to be confusion around the topic, we thought it would be useful to link directly to each of our article topics.
Does ALARP equal due diligence, written August 2012
Does ALARP equal due diligence (expanded), written September 2012
Due Diligence and ALARP: Are they the same?, written October 2012
SFAIRP is not equivalent to ALARP, written January 2014
When does SFAIRP equal ALARP, written February 2016
Future REBoK sessions will examine how the risk process may or may not demonstrate due diligence.
Due diligence is a legal concept, not a scientific or engineering one. But it has become the central determinant of how engineering decisions are judged, particularly in hindsight in court.
It is endemic in Australian law including corporations law (eg don’t trade whilst insolvent), safety law (eg WHS obligations) and environmental legislation as well as being a defence against (professional) negligence in the common law.
From a design viewpoint, viable options to be evaluated must satisfy the laws of nature in a way that satisfies the laws of man. As the processes used by the courts to test such options forensically are logical and systematic and readily understood by engineers, it seems curious that they are not more often used, particularly since it is a vital concern of senior decision makers.
Stay tuned for further details about upcoming sessions. And if you are needing clarification around risk, risk engineering and risk management, contact us for a friendly chat.
The Art of Communicating Engineering Judgement
Tim Procter shares his experience as a graduate engineer developing engineering judgement and his approach to communicating this knowledge to various stakeholders. This article was originally published at Engineering Education Australia.
As a graduate engineer (some years ago) moving from university to the workplace I was surprised to discover just how vast and varied engineering knowledge actually is. After completing an intensive degree and gaining what felt like a good understanding of engineering fundamentals, it came as something of a surprise to realise that becoming expert in just one engineering sub-sub-discipline could truly take a lifetime.
Science fiction legend, Arthur C. Clarke noted that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. To the qualified but inexperienced engineer that I was, a senior engineer discussing advanced engineering knowledge appeared quite the same; the outputs were comprehensible, but not their derivation. Such knowledge was generally referred to as demonstrating ‘engineering judgement’.
Engineering judgement is used when making a decision. It involves an engineer weighing up, in their own mind, the pros and cons of the potential courses of action being considered. This process may be formal, intuitive or deliberate or, in most cases, an intricate combination of the three.
As a graduate I regarded this engineering judgement with a sense of awe, as I considered the years of experience my seniors wielded when pronouncing how the engineered world should be. Surely, I thought, one day in the (distant) future my engineering judgement will arrive. And then I too will have the knowledge!
Oddly enough, I found personal development tends not to work this way. My engineering judgement gradually developed with my experience as I dealt with problems of greater complexity. I discovered that I understood the decision required, the options available, and the best course of action, but the act of explaining the decision was often more difficult than simply knowing the answer.
This knowing/telling paradox gives a clue as to the source of my graduate self’s confusion and awe of my senior colleagues’ wisdom. While the best solution may have been found, a problem persists; sometimes this judgement must be explained to a non-technical layperson, including graduate engineers.
Explaining engineering judgement to non-technical persons happens in a range of contexts – financial, managerial, corporate, governmental, legal, and the wider community. It is especially important for these stakeholders to understand the decision-making processes when dealing with safety, the environment, project management, operations and a whole host of other engineering considerations. This means that engineering jargon and equations will often work against the goal of communication.
The most effective approach I have found to communicate engineering judgement is to explain the options considered, their gradual exclusion, and the specific reasons each excluded option was considered unsuitable. It requires a clear explanation of critical success factors and how each option supports or hinders each of these goals. This best reflects the engineering process, where much of the time the ‘best’ option is actually the ‘least worst’ option, given the constraints it must meet and the corresponding trade-offs in time, cost, quality, and efficiency.
I find this process is generally understood by non-technical persons and helps prompt structured and useful questions from listeners: Why was this option not appropriate? How were the specific benefits of this option considered? This provides a good enquiry framework for engineering graduates and others to both understand and develop their own engineering judgement.
It is critical for graduates to develop their engineering judgement and the ability to communicate it. It brings confidence to both the engineer and their stakeholders, as each better understands the others’ needs and decisions. It is, in many ways, the single most important skill I have developed in my career, and something that each day I practise, in both senses of the word.
My advice for graduates is to take any opportunity to do the same. Make your best decisions for the problems you face, and then discuss your judgements with your managers, mentors and teammates. And when more complex engineering problems arise you’ll be able to not only solve them but also explain them. And that’s something that every engineer should be able to do.
Also published at:
https://eea.org.au/insights-articles/art-communicating-engineering-judgement
https://frontier.engineersaustralia.org.au/news/the-art-of-communicating-engineering-judgement/
Swinburne 2016 Wrap-up
The post-graduate course R2A presents at Swinburne became a core unit in 2016. Over 80 students enrolled in first semester. The course is based around the 2016 edition of the R2A Text.
Presenters from R2A included Gaye Francis, Tim Procter, Richard Robinson and Adriaan den Dulk.
The enrolment numbers were a step up from previous semesters, and the topics students chose for their projects varied accordingly, including transport, construction, waste management, and one particularly memorable demonstration of an exploding mobile phone battery.
We enjoyed the increased diversity in contributions and viewpoints, and we look forward to engaging with more new students in our 2017 Engineering Due Diligence course.
Precautionary Principle vs Precautionary Approach: What's the Difference?
One of the more interesting philosophical issues arising from the introduction of the model WHS legislation is the question of whether the precautionary principle incorporated in environmental legislation is congruent with the precautionary approach of the model WHS legislation.The precautionary principle is typically articulated as: If there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation[1], with due diligence being recognised as a defence in the Victorian Act (Section 66B).The words in Australian legislation are derived from the 1992 Rio Declaration. This formulation is usually recognised as being ultimately derived from the 1980s German environmental policy. The origin of the principle is generally ascribed to the German notion of Vorsorgeprinzip, literally, the principle of foresight and planning[2].The WHS legislation adopts a precautionary approach. It basically requires that all possible practicable precautions for a particular safety issue be identified, and then those that are considered reasonable in the circumstances are to be adopted. In a very real sense is develops the principle of reciprocity as articulated by Lord Atkin[3] in Donoghue vs Stevenson following the Christian articulation, quote: The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer's question "Who is my neighbour?" receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbor. Interestingly, in describing what constitutes a due diligence defence under the WHS act, Barry Sherriff and Michael Tooma[4] favourably quote a case from the Land and Environment Court in NSW, suggesting that due diligence as a defence under WHS law parallels due diligence as a defence under environmental legislation.Does this mean that the two precautionary approaches, despite having quite divergent developmental paths have converged?Tentatively, the answer seems to be ‘Yes’. The common element appears to be the concern with uncertainty stemming from the potential limitations of scientific knowledge to describe comprehensively and predict accurately threats to human safety, and the environment.What does this mean? At the least is means that due diligence as a defence against things that can go wrong in Australia is on the up and up.
[1] Victorian Environment Protection Act 1970. No. 8056 of 1970 Version incorporating amendments as at 1 September 2007. Version No. 161.[2] Jacqueline Peel (2005). The Precautionary Principle in Practice. Environmental Decision Making and Scientific Uncertainty. The Federation Press.[3] Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932). See http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1932/100.html[4] Barry Sherriff and Michael Tooma (2010). Understanding the Model Work Health and Safety Act. See p 43. State Pollution Control Commission v RV Kelly (1991).
Edith Cowan
Edith Cowan
R2A were commissioned by Edith Cowan University 2012 to write a unit in the Masters of Occupation Health & Safety.
The unit is known as Systems Safety and is available as a off and on campus modes.
The R2A updated text is the significant resource for the unit and is referenced extensively in the course.
R2A keeps in regular contact with Edith Cowan and receives feedback general updates.
R2A Short Courses
R2A EEA Workshop
Engineering Due Diligence Workshop
R2A is partnering with Engineering Education Australia (EEA) to deliver a two day Engineering Due Diligence workshop. This workshop is based on the very successful Risk and Liability Management course presented by Richard Robinson over the last 10 years or so.
Workshop Aim
Provide decision-makers with tools to implement due-diligence proceses as part of good governance ensuring that the laws of nature are managed to the satisfaction of the laws of man. This includes project, safety, environmental and financial outcomes.
Workshop Outline
The workshop will provide participants with the understanding, skills and tools to enable all significant technological risk issues and proposed controls to be appropriately escalated to senior decision makers in a way that those decision makers can understand.
It will enable shareholders and taxpayers to transparently see why expenditure is required. And, in the worst case scenerio, satisfy the courts if it all comes to grief.
Who should attend?
Company Directors, Senior Executives, Project Directors and their risk and compliance staff.
Workshop Objectives
At the end of the workshop, participants will be able to -
- Understand the concept of due diligence to ensure good governance
- Understand what constitutes 'due diligence' under Australian High Court case (common) law
- Understand the requirements of the Work Health and Safety (WHS) legislation to positively demonstrate due diligence
- Understand why compliance ≠ safety due diligence
- Understand why the risk management standard fails to deal with potential show stoppers (before they happen)
- Understand the difference between due diligence and risk management
- Decide which risk management sign off paradigms are appropriate
- Use tools to educate and influence others
- Know when to avoid HazOps and FMECAs and other detailed bottom up risk assessment processes
2014 Dates
- Melbourne - 20 & 21 November
2015 Dates
- Brisbane - 18 & 19 March
- Melbourne - 13 & 14 May
- Perth - 29 & 30 July
- Sydney - 12 & 13 August
Testimonials from November 2013 workshop -
"I attended the Engineering Due Diligence Workshop in November 2013 run by Richard Robinson of R2A with the view of gaining new insights into managing corporate risks. I gained a lot out of the two days and in particular the points raised by various discussion and case studies given by Richard. A very worth while two days."
David Nordio, Acting Infrastructure Delivery Manager, Port of Melbourne Corporation
In November 2013, I attended the Engineering Education Australia/R2A workshop and found it to be a good mix of theory and practical insights. I particularly enjoyed the case studies and interaction with the other workshop participants. Richard's style of presentation led to some interesting discussion and I would recommend the workshop to my colleagues. Overall, the workshop was excellent."
Christopher Clyde, Defence Material Organisation
"I recently attended the Engineering Education Australia/R2A workshop and found it to be insightful, practical and very helpful. The workshop format led to many interesting discussions over the two days and participants were able to take away ideas and new techniques that could be implemented immediately. The content was very relevant and the R2A text is a useful resource as well."
David Howard, Group Manager, Risk and Systems, Grollo Leisure and Tourism
Testimonials from previous workshops -
"Relaxed atmosphere. Very relevant and up to date. Specific, diagrammatic, case studies and flexible delivery"
"Small intimate group. Examples, case studies etc.."
"Excellent course and presenter, very knowledgeable"
"Small group, willingness to address attendee's priorities"
"Willingness to tailor to group interests"
"Excellent content & book"
WH&S Workshops - Perth
Work Health & Safety (OHS) Training Workshops – Perth
The introduction of the new Work, Health & Safety Act in Western Australia is expected in late 2012/13. The WA parliament has completed drafting the bill for general industry and is seeking public comment. This legislation is expected to replace existing OHS legislation.
The changes are such that most internal OHS systems wont comply with the new legislation. Is your OHS policy ready for the change?
The proposed new Work Health & Safety Act requires a positive demonstration of due diligence, a large paradigm shift from the traditional hazard based approach encourage by the current risk management standard and most existing OHS legislation.
Is your business ready for the change? Has the management team in your organisation reviewed the OHS policy of your organisation? Are you a responsible officer under the new legislation?
The new WHS Act should be on the agenda at your next Board meeting.
Now is the time to act and to learn more. Why not join R2A for a half-day workshop on 5th October.
The workshop will explain the implications of the new Act with a focus on organisational governance with respect to safety matters and how you can positively demonstrate due diligence.
The workshop will provide participants with –
- An appreciate of the new Act and relevant High court case law and the impacts of such
- An understanding of the paradigm shift from hazard based risk management to precaution based risk management
- An understanding of the requirement for a positive duty of care for officers to exercise due diligence
- An appreciation of R2A’s defensible risk management approach including practical examples from a case study
Register now for the Work Health & Safety (OHS) Training Workshops on 5th October.
Questions?
Please contact Gaye Francis on 1300 772 333 or email Gaye here.
