Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 15

Assessing the awareness of risk concepts by

new engineering students


Graham Schleyera (corresponding author), Rui Fang Duana, Julian Williamsonb and
Nicola Staceyb
a
Department of Engineering, University of Liverpool, Chadwick Tower, Peach Street,
Liverpool L69 7ZE, UK
b
Health and Safety Laboratory, Harpur Hill, Buxton SK17 9JN, UK

Abstract There is an indication that across higher-education engineering courses in the UK, the
extent and content of risk education varies, and is not always commensurate with the level of risk that
undergraduates could be responsible for in their subsequent professional lives. Consequently, a project
was set up to incorporate risk education into the curriculum of an undergraduate engineering course in
a UK university for the 2005/06 academic year. A set of learning outcomes was developed from a
template of topic areas in consultation with key stakeholders. These learning outcomes formed the
basis of a questionnaire that was designed to assess students’ awareness of risk issues. This paper
describes the development of the questionnaire, the interpretation of the results, and how the
questionnaire will be used to help achieve the desired learning outcomes.

Keywords safety risk education; assessment; learning outcomes; undergraduate engineering


curriculum

Introduction
The need to educate undergraduates in aspects of risk relevant to their discipline is
recognised by various professional institutions and degree-accrediting bodies. Over
a third of respondents from the consultation exercise ‘Revitalising Health and
Safety’ [1] run by the Health and Safety Commission HSC specifically mentioned
the importance of covering health and safety issues in further and higher education.
In addition, 25% of respondents stated that standards of ‘designed-in safety’ would
be improved if there was more focus on health and safety during design courses and
if the standards required for the European Union’s CE marking and other ‘kite’
certificate markings were clarified.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is committed to ensuring that profes-
sionals working in a safety-critical business receive adequate education in risk man-
agement as part of its mandatory activities detailed in the HSC strategic plan
2001/04. However, there is an indication that across higher-education (HE) engi-
neering courses the content and extent of risk education vary, and are not always
commensurate with the level of risk that undergraduates could be responsible for in
their future working lives. A literature review scoping risk education in HE indi-
cated that the uptake of risk education in the UK is in its infancy and has not yet
been formally implemented in any comprehensive manner across degree courses [2].
HE institutions generally do not uniformly interpret the accrediting bodies’
guidelines for the content and extent of risk education [2]. The lack of detailed
prescription for risk education learning outcomes and course content is one of the

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 35/3


Awareness of risk concepts 185

main barriers inhibiting universities from addressing risk education in a more


comprehensive way.
The need for formal implementation of risk education is addressed directly by the
HSE’s strategic business aims. Action point 34 states: ‘The government and HSC
will act to ensure that safety-critical professionals such as architects and engineers
receive adequate education in risk management. This will be delivered through a
program of direct approaches to relevant higher and further education institutions
and professional institutions’ [1].
Drawing upon other relevant work in the field of risk education, a proposed set
of risk education topic areas was developed for undergraduate engineering students.
These were grounded in current professional requirements of the engineering insti-
tutions, legislation, and best practice described in relevant HSE publications and
current academic courses. These topics were circulated to a number of key stake-
holders in HSE, academia and the engineering institutions, to obtain their opinions.
These opinions were incorporated into a final template of topic areas (Appendix A).
From this, learning outcomes (aimed at programme level) that could be embedded
in an undergraduate engineering course were developed. A distinction was made in
the learning outcomes between the awareness and understanding of risk concepts,
and the application of this knowledge. These learning outcomes balance the
necessary knowledge of risk concepts for graduate engineers on entering the pro-
fessional arena with the competing demands of other new topics on the curriculum.
They also incorporate those areas that were identified during the consultation as high
priority, including personal safety and the importance of using appropriate design
standards.

Desired learning outcomes in risk concepts


On successful completion of the programme, students should be able to demonstrate
knowledge and understanding of:

(1) the concepts of hazard, safety and risk as part of everyday life;
(2) the engineer’s professional responsibilities for safety and managing risk (moral
and legal obligations, and financial and human factors relating to safety);
(3) the principles of hazard identification and risk assessment relevant to the
discipline;
(4) the methods of hazard identification and risk assessment (both qualitative and
quantitative) relevant to the discipline and how to apply them in familiar
situations;
(5) the techniques for reducing and controlling risk and how to apply them in
familiar situations;
(6) potential exposure to hazards and risk in the workplace;
(7) underlying causes of accidents and failures (through case studies).

On successful completion of the programme, students should be able to apply knowl-


edge of the above topics as follows:

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 35/3


186 G. Schleyer et al.

(1) can design simple engineering systems for safety, accounting for uncertainties;
(2) can perform a risk assessment using appropriate methods, avoiding some of
the common pitfalls, and implement, where necessary, effective risk-reduction
measures;
(3) can learn from documented failures and accidents the underlying hazard,
safety and risk issues and relate this knowledge to their future professional
responsibilities;
(4) can identify and control safety hazards for themselves and others in the course
of work activities.

Questionnaire design
The purpose of the questionnaire was to ascertain students’ level of understanding
of the risk education learning outcomes before they received formal tuition at under-
graduate level. Therefore, the questions were designed to assess their understanding
of concepts as opposed to knowledge of facts relating to a taught course. The key
concepts for each learning outcome were first agreed by the project team (Appen-
dix B). A total of 50 multiple-choice questions were then developed to provide some
indication of students’ knowledge and understanding of the key concepts of the
learning outcomes in the following risk topic areas:

(1) concepts of hazard, safety and risk as part of everyday life (12 questions);
(2) engineers’ professional responsibilities (12 questions);
(3) principles of hazard identification and risk assessment (8 questions);
(4) techniques for reducing and controlling risk (6 questions);
(5) potential exposure to hazards and risk in the workplace (6 questions);
(6) underlying causes of accidents and failures (6 questions).

Due to the time constraints there was no formal testing of the validity of the ques-
tionnaire; a small pilot test resulted in non-substantial changes. The face validity of
the questionnaire was judged to be good according to the experience and knowledge
of the project team.
A multiple-choice question format was adopted to reduce the subjective element
of marking a large number of open-ended answers, and to facilitate comparisons
between levels of understanding across the various risk topic areas. Each question
had five possible answers, from which students had to mark one choice that was, in
their opinion, the best or correct answer. A few questions had a number of poten-
tially valid answers, though the ‘correct’ answers were based on the preferred set of
responses defined by the project team.
The questionnaire was given to new entrants at the start of the 2004/05 academic
year (121 participated) and to the same cohort of students at the end of their first
year. In both cases it was taken under comparable examination-type conditions. Due
to absences, only 81 students completed the questionnaire satisfactorily both times.
In order to make comparisons with the students’ end-of-year average results across
all assessed subjects, the sample for analysis was further reduced to 78.

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 35/3


Awareness of risk concepts 187

Questionnaire results
The overall results for the complete questionnaire taken at the start and end of the
year are summarised in Table 1. It shows a small decrease in maximum scores but
an increase in average scores. The increase in average score could be attributed to
practice effects (i.e. familiarity with the questions in the retake). However, there
were some interesting trends in the different sections of the questionnaire that justify
further examination.
The distribution of scores for each question is given in Fig. 1. It is interesting to
note that no question was correctly or incorrectly answered by all students in the
sample. The distribution of scores in the ranges 0–20%, 21–30%, 31–40% and so
on is given in Fig. 2. This shows the number of candidates in each score range, the
majority being in the 51–70% range.
Questionnaire data were entered into an SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences) database for analysis. The students’ start-of-year and end-of-year scores
were able to be matched. Formal tests of significance (paired sample t-test) were
conducted to assess the degree of change in the students’ scores between the start

TABLE 1 Summary questionnaire results (percentage scores)

Start of year End of year Score change

Maximum 90 88 −2.2
Minimum 24 24 0
Average 59.8 63.4 +3.6

Start of year End of year

100.0

90.0

80.0
Question score (%)

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50
Question no.

Fig. 1 The distribution of scores by question.

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 35/3


188 G. Schleyer et al.

50

40 37
No. of candidates

29
30
Start of year
19
20 16 End of year
12 11
8 8
10 5
3 3 2 2
0 0 1 0 0
0
0-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51-60% 61-70% 71-80% 81-90% 91-
100%
Questionnaire score

Fig. 2 Number of scores according to percentile group.

and the end of the year. The difference in the scores was found to be significant (t-
test p < 0.01). This indicates confidence at the 99% level that the overall improve-
ment in scores is not due to chance. Or, put another way, there is a 1% chance that
the pattern of difference between the two groups of scores was random. This measure
of statistical significance does not indicate why the improvement in scores has
occurred. It is reasonable to assume that practice effects did contribute to the
improvement, as well as a general learning effect (the students had undertaken a
year of academic study between completing the two questionnaires). The effect size
(the difference between the two scores) was small, especially when compared with
the range of the scores (see Table 1). It will be interesting to compare these results
with those from the next cohort of students, who will have received the course incor-
porating risk education.
A number of students (17) out of the sample of 78 improved their performance
by 10 or more percentage points; one candidate improved by 28 percentage points,
but 27 candidates did not improve their performance, as seen from Fig. 3. It is pos-
sible that the conditions under which the re-test were conducted could have influ-
enced performance. Issues such as fatigue could have had a detrimental effect,
especially as the re-test was conducted during the end-of-year examinations. The
issue of motivation also needs to be considered: students were aware that the re-test
had no bearing on their end-of-year assessments, and so might have been less com-
mitted to answering the questionnaire as effectively as when they first did, at the
start of the academic year.
With reference to Fig. 4, section 6 (Underlying causes of accidents and failures),
scored the lowest averages of all the sections in the questionnaire. This is not sur-
prising given the students’ limited exposure to accident case studies at this stage in
the students’ education. It is reassuring to find that the section on potential exposure
to hazards and risk in the workplace (section 5) achieved the highest average score.
However, it should not necessarily be assumed that all sections of the questionnaire
were equally challenging to the students.

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 35/3


Awareness of risk concepts 189

Start of year (sorted) End of year


Change in mark

100

80
Candidate score (%)

60

40

28
20

0 -2 -2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 -8
76 78
-12
-20

Candidate (sorted)

Fig. 3 Differences in questionnaire scores by candidate.

Start of year End of year

100
90 82.5
77.1
80
Questionnaire score (%)

66.3 63.2
70 65.5 64.5
60.7 55.4 59.4
60
50.3
50
46.8 48.1

40
30
20
10
0
y

n
s

es

s
e
ilit
pt

se
io

c
pl

la
ct
ce

ib

au
ci

kp
du
ns
on

in

C
or
re
po

Pr
C

W
es

k
is
R

Fig. 4 Differences in scores according to section of questionnaire.

The questionnaire results are also expected to provide a useful benchmark against
which to gauge anticipated improvements in students’ knowledge of risk concepts
once the risk education learning content has been incorporated into the engineering
undergraduate curriculum for admission in the 2005/06 academic year. For this
reason, it is not possible to reproduce every question in this paper. However, the

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 35/3


190 G. Schleyer et al.

questionnaire can be made available for use by other academic intuitions under con-
trolled conditions.

Questionnaire appraisal
Each question was analysed to show the distribution of scores by groups of students
ranked according to their total score for the questionnaire. The analysis generated
five groups in this case. The ideal distribution, given in Fig. 5, shows a decreasing
trend, in which group 1 represents students who obtained the highest overall score
and group 5 represents students who obtained the lowest overall score on the ques-
tionnaire. Individual questions should have a similar distribution to the ideal given
in Fig. 5, that is, the highest-scoring students should be scoring well in the individ-
ual questions. If the distribution is significantly distorted for an individual question,
and does not reflect the ideal distribution (e.g. shows a reversal of the increasing
trend), then this could indicate that the logic of a particular question might have been
perceived as inconsistent by the students. Question 8 was the only one within the
questionnaire where the pattern of responses did not mirror the pattern of the ideal
distribution. Question 8 read as follows. ‘Someone using an electric circular saw
will have the highest risk of suffering injury if they: use it once a week; use it every
day; use it twice a week; use it all day every day; use it once a month.’ A possible
explanation for the pattern of responses to this question is that the more academi-
cally inclined students will take more time to think about the question, and start to
consider the complexity of the issue. For example, increasing competence through
more exposure to the activity could be considered beneficial to reducing risk, and
that any increase in risk might not therefore be directly related to the increase in
exposure.
The highest- and lowest-scoring questions for each section of the questionnaire
are presented in Table 2. Question 9 was answered correctly by the most students
out of all the questions in the whole questionnaire. Question 9 read as follows.
‘Which one of the following situations has the highest risk of an accident: an expe-
rienced technician who uses a reliable computer-operated metal-cutting machine a
few times most days; a student who uses a reliable computer-operated metal-cutting
machine rarely with supervision; an experienced technician who uses an old manu-
ally operated metal-cutting machine all day every day; a trainee technician who uses
Percentage correct

1 2 3 4 5

Fig. 5 The ideal distribution of questionaire scores.

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 35/3


Awareness of risk concepts 191

TABLE 2 Highest and lowest percentage scores for each section of the questionnaire

Start of year End of year

Section Min. score (%) Max. score Average Min. score Max. score Average

1. Concepts 30.8 (Q2) 94.9 (Q9) 65.5 33.3 (Q2) 91.0 (Q5) 66.3
(12 questions)
2. Responsibilities 5.1 (Q21) 94.9 (Q14) 60.7 5.1 (Q21) 91.0 (Q14) 63.2
(12 questions)
3. Principles 20.5 (Q25) 84.6 (Q26) 50.3 23.1 (Q30) 85.9 (Q26) 55.4
(8 questions)
4. Ristreduction 34.6 (Q35) 71.8 (Q36) 59.4 41.0 (Q35) 80.8 (Q36) 64.5
(6 questions)
5. Workplace 48.7 (Q41) 85.9 (Q40) 77.1 59.0 (Q41) 92.3 (Q40) 82.5
(6 questions)
6. Causes 21.8 (Q49) 55.1 (Q50) 46.8 25.6 (Q49) 59 (Q46/50) 48.1
(6 questions)

an old manually operated metal-cutting machine occasionally; an inexperienced


technician who uses an old manually operated metal-cutting machine most of every
day and often forgets to use the safety glasses.’ While students generally answered
this question correctly, it is nevertheless possible at this stage (start of the year) that
they were not able to fully articulate the reasons for their choice (i.e. that neglect of
safety precautions and increasing exposure are important factors for the increase in
risk).
Question 21 was answered incorrectly by the most students out of the entire ques-
tionnaire. Most students (about 50%) selected negligence and some (about 30%)
took ‘all of the above’ as their correct answer.
Question 21: A practicing engineer who fails to exercise all reasonable care to
prevent avoidable danger to health and safety can lose their professional engineer-
ing status on the grounds of
A. Incompetence
B. Negligence
C. Misconduct
D. Fraud
E. All of the above

Correlation with end-of-year examination results average


A comparison of the end-of-year questionnaire results and the end-of-year exami-
nation results average was conducted. So as not to disclose the actual end-of-year
examination results, only the questionnaire results are presented in Fig. 6, which are
sorted by the end-of-year average. The initial hypothesis was that students scoring
highly on the end-of-year questionnaire were also expected to score highly in
their overall end-of-year assessment/examinations. A formal test of significance
(Spearman rank correlation coefficient) was conducted to assess whether there was

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 35/3


192 G. Schleyer et al.

100.0
90.0
80.0
Average score

70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 141618 20 22 2426 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 4850 5254 56 58 60 62 64 66 6870 72 74 76 78

Candidate (sorted according to their end of year exam results )

Fig. 6 End-of-year questionnaire score according to ranking of end-of-year


examination average.

a correlation. The difference in these scores was not found to be significant at any
of the recognised levels of significance, and so the null hypothesis (i.e. that there
would be no correlation between these two sets of results) was supported.
These results seem to suggest that the end-of-year questionnaire and the end-of-
year examinations average are measuring different attributes. In retrospect, this is
perhaps to be expected, as the questionnaire is intended to assess awareness of a
topic that students have not yet encountered in a formal sense, so it is not surpris-
ing that the results for the risk questionnaire are independent of academic perfor-
mance on subjects that the students have been introduced to. This lack of relationship
between these two sets of results also suggests that there was little convergence of
the learning content for risk education (as specified in the template for risk educa-
tion learning outcomes) with the content of the actual course that the 78 students
took over the 2004/05 academic year. This also points to the possibility that the
improvements in scores on the risk questionnaire between the start and the end of
the year were due to practice effects and a general learning effect, rather than any
of the course content that the students received informing their knowledge of risk
education. It will be interesting to compare these results with those from the cohort
of students for the 2005/06 academic year, in order to gauge the success of the imple-
mentation of the risk education learning outcomes in the revised curriculum.

Conclusions
This paper has reported the motivation for HE engineering departments to address
the content of risk education in the curriculum of an undergraduate engineering
degree programme. A proposed set of risk education learning outcomes that rea-
sonably define the topic of ‘risk education’ for engineers were presented. A ques-
tionnaire was devised to assess students’ knowledge and awareness of risk issues.
The questionnaire was based on key concepts of the learning outcomes. A cohort of
new entrants completed this questionnaire at the start and the end of the 2004/05

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 35/3


Awareness of risk concepts 193

academic year. There was a small overall improvement in these scores at the end of
the year that was statistically significant. When these end-of-year scores were com-
pared with students’ overall end-of-year examination scores, there was found to be
no relationship. This suggests that the students received little formal tuition in ‘risk
education’ (as identified within the learning outcomes). It also suggests that any
improvement in scores was due to practice effects and a general learning effect.
These results are currently being used to inform the appropriate level at which to
pitch the content of formal learning, teaching and supporting materials for the
revised curriculum incorporating the risk education learning outcomes. The
questionnaire results are also expected to provide a useful benchmark against which
to gauge anticipated improvements in students’ knowledge of risk concepts once the
risk education learning content has been incorporated into the engineering under-
graduate curriculum for admission in the 2005/06 academic year. For this reason, it
is not possible to reproduce every question in this paper. However, the questionnaire
can be made available for use by other academic intuitions under controlled
conditions.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the HSE and the University of Liverpool (Studentship
Awards) for funding this work, colleagues at HSL for piloting the questionnaire and
those who provided comments on the risk education topics during the consultation.

References
[1] HSE and DETR, Revitalizing Health and Safety – Strategy Statement, OSCSG0390 (HMSO, London,
2000).
[2] J. F. Lee, Education of Undergraduate Engineers in Risk Concepts – Scoping Study (HSE Books,
London, 1999).

Appendix A. Elements of risk education learning outcomes – post consultation


1. The concepts of hazard and risk as part of everyday life
• The fundamental concepts of hazard, likelihood, probability and risk
• Definition of terms
• The trade-offs we make between risk and benefit
• Personal/professional responsibility for effects of our actions on the health and safety of
others

2. Personal health and safety in the workplace


• Hazards from machinery (operation, maintenance and testing)
• Hazards from workplace transport and equipment (operation and maintenance)
• Hazards from pressure systems and pressurised equipment (operation, inspection and
maintenance)

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 35/3


194 G. Schleyer et al.

• Hazards from electricity


• Hazards from workplace environment – noise and vibration, slips, trips and falls, chemi-
cals (health, fire and explosion), lifting and carrying, fire safety
• Use of personal protective equipment (PPE)
• Emergency procedures

3. The principles of hazard identification and risk assessment


• Hazard identification, preliminary hazard analysis, consequence analysis and human error
• The use of data and information in risk assessment
• Criteria for assessing risk within broad social, political and economic frameworks
• HSE’s tolerability of risk (TOR) approach – SFAIRP, ALARP, the use of good practice
and how this differs to the Environment Agency’s BATNEEQ (best available technology
not entailing excessive cost)
• Cost–benefit analysis – value-of-life issues
• An appreciation of the public’s view of risk (societal concerns) and what underlies this
(perception, social amplification and cultural bias)

4. The methods of hazard identification and risk assessment


• How to complete a basic risk assessment – HSE’s five steps to risk assessment
• How to estimate risks through the use of qualitative and quantitative tools and techniques
• The main hazards and risks associated with a number of specified systems and processes
appropriate to the discipline
• The evaluation of risk to determine tolerability

5. Techniques for quantifying risk


• Risk graphs, fault trees, event trees, failure modes and effects
• Appropriate sources for failure rates and associated uncertainties
• Simple task analysis and its use to estimate human error probability
• Statistical models for predicting human error (HEART and THERP)
• Assessment of the consequences (injuries and damage to health) and associated likelihood
and uncertainties for a specified hazard

6. The pitfalls of risk assessment


• Dangers associated with the inappropriate or incorrect use of risk assessment techniques,
illustrated by case studies
• Dealing with uncertainties and assumptions
• Know that there are limitations to underlying mathematical models
• Advantages and disadvantages of formal quantitative risk assessment
• How to critically assess risk assessments

7. Principles of risk reduction and hierarchy of control measures


• How to implement standard risk control concepts and measures appropriate to
discipline
• Importance of relating control measures to the risk assessment
• How to assess the effectiveness of risk mitigation and risk control strategies

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 35/3


Awareness of risk concepts 195

• How to take account of common cause (mode) failure


• How to set up the systems required to implement the risk assessment

8. Risk considerations for design


• Importance of accounting for human behaviour, capacity and organisational factors in the
design process, basic ergonomics
• How to design against human error (including appreciation of different types of human
error)
• Inherent safety approach to design
• Scientific principles used in design for safety and engineering safe operation
• Concept of serial and parallel systems
• Safety redundancy and conditional failures
• The significance of EU directives, regulations and the role of harmonised standards in
ensuring compliance

9. Understanding underlying causes of accidents and ill health, and the link
between hazards, accidents and risk management
• Knowledge and understanding of the causes of major accidents
• Learning from accidents and disasters, e.g. documented failures such as Three Mile Island,
Chernobyl, Flixborough, Piper Alpha, and the Kings Cross Fire, shuttle disasters
• A case study for management of risk that is appropriate to the discipline

10. The influence of safety culture


• Definitions of safety culture and climate, its importance and effects
• Characteristics of good and poor safety cultures
• The relationship between culture, system and safety

11. Risk Management


• Introduction to safety management systems and HSE’s HSG 65 model
• Key elements of a safety management system and their functions
• The four ‘C’s – communication, competence, cooperation and control
• Importance of human behaviour and organisational factors (including management com-
mitment) in the management of health and safety risks

12. Measuring and reviewing occupational health and safety performance


• Understanding accident and safety performance data, and the use of such data as a measure
of safety performance
• Financial implications of poor occupational health and safety performance

13. Professional responsibilities for managing risk


• Introduction to main elements of UK and European legal systems, and their relationship
• The institutions of health and safety law, e.g. role of government, duties and powers of
Health and Safety Commission (HSC) and Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and others
such as local authorities and Employment Medical Advisory Service (EMAS)

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 35/3


196 G. Schleyer et al.

• The philosophy, key elements, institutions and legal requirements of the Health and Safety
at Work Act etc. 1974 (HSWA)
• Regulations, Standards and Approved Codes of Practice (ACOP) under the HSWA
• Introduction to key legislation relevant to the discipline such as: Management of Health
and Management of Safety at Work Regulations, 1999; Provision and Use of Work Equip-
ment Regulations 1998 (PUWER); and Control of Substances Hazardous to Health 1999
(COSHH)
• Professional codes of conduct and ethics

Appendix B. Key concepts of learning outcomes to be tested


1. Concepts of hazard, safety and risk as part of everyday life
• The difference between hazard and risk
• Definitions of hazard and risk
• The trade-offs between risk and benefit in everyday life
• Absolute safety as not possible, but an ideal
• Dealing with uncertainty in terms of risk decision making
• Risk not just as consequence, but due to likelihood and exposure
• High severity does not automatically mean high risk
• Concept of exposure to risk
• Concept of likelihood

2. Engineers’ professional responsibilities for safety and managing risk


• Understanding there are codes of conduct
• Understanding the purpose of the codes of conduct
• The institutional role of the EC (e.g. accreditation of courses, purpose of chartered status
in relation to risk education)
• Legal duty – professional practice underpinned by law
• Relationship of safety to other business objectives – integral to business, not an ‘add on’
• Relevance of ‘good health is good business’ case
• Concept of role and importance of standards, and importance of compliance to them
• The concept of ‘reasonably practicable’
• Professional responsibility under the HSWA
• Responsibility of designer towards the end user
• Impact of design decisions on user, through the lifecycle of the product

3. Principles of hazard identification and risk assessment relevant to the discipline


• Idea of risk assessment as a process – steps, iterative, systematic approach
• Techniques for risk assessment – the range that exists and the reasons for them
• The purpose of risk assessment
• When to do a risk assessment – its ongoing, dynamic nature
• Hazard identification
• Appreciation that things do fail, e.g. a guarded hazard is not an eliminated hazard
• Risk assessments should take account of uncertainty and what is not known

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 35/3


Awareness of risk concepts 197

4. Techniques for reducing and controlling risk


• The Hierarchy of risk control – elimination and reduction
• Measuring how effective risk controls are
• How to decide what is ‘safe enough’, e.g. when to stop
• The concept of ALARP
• The requirement for risk reduction measures to be practical and useable, not a technical
exercise but related to broader business aims.

5. Potential exposure to hazards and risk in the workplace


• Personal responsibility for health and safety
• The results of an individual’s actions on the health and safety of others
• Understanding of rules and procedures for health and safety in the workplace
• Appreciation of human error
• Awareness of hazards in the workplace
• Employer’s responsibility for the welfare of employees
• Safety and health. The difference between chronic and acute exposure – danger of accu-
mulative exposure

6. Underlying causes of accidents and failures


• Link between hazards, accidents and risk management
• Fundamental causes of accidents
• Multiple causes – chain of events

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 35/3


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Вам также может понравиться