BE YOND L IKE L IHOOD AND CONSE QUE NCE : DE VE L OPING A - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
BE YOND L IKE L IHOOD AND CONSE QUE NCE : DE VE L OPING A - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
BE YOND L IKE L IHOOD AND CONSE QUE NCE : DE VE L OPING A SYST E MS APPROACH T O RISK ASSE SSME NT IN T HE L E D OUT DOOR ACT IVIT Y CONT E XT Clar e Dallat T HE CORONE RS VE RDICT I t wa s c
T HE CORONE R’S VE RDICT …
- “I
t wa s c le a r upo n the e vide nc e tha t the
risk a sse ssme nt pro c e ss a pplie d [to the
Be lls Pa ra de e xc ursio n] b y Mr Mc K e nzie a nd his sta ff wa s informa l, a d hoc a nd
se riously ina de qua te”. (Co ro ne r Ro d
Cha ndle r, 2011 T a sma nia ).
- “T
he re ha d b e e n no substa ntive a na lysis
unde rta ke n by the sc hool c o nc e rning
swimming a t this site , a nd little or no
c urre nt a dvic e ha d be e n pa sse d on to
the Ye a r 7 ho me ro o m te a c he rs a s a g ro up”. (Co ro ne r Pe te r White , 2014 Vic to ria )
- “T
he fa ilure to e a rlie r unde rta ke a n
a ppropria te , c ompre he nsive risk a sse ssme nt, pro ve d c ritic a l”. (Wo rksa fe
Vic to ria , 2011)
T HE RE SE ARCH PROBL E M
- I
na de q ua te risk a sse ssme nt fre q ue ntly hig hlig hte d a s a c o ntrib uting fa c to r in de a ths a nd injurie s o f pa rtic ipa nts o n le d
- utdo o r a c tivitie s (L
OA)
- T
he c o mple tio n o f a risk a sse ssme nt is a fo rma l re q uire me nt in pla nning L OA’ s
- T
he syste ms-thinking a ppro a c h to a c c ide nt c a usa tio n in L OA do ma in (a nd sa fe ty c ritic a l do ma ins g e ne ra lly) is no w pre va le nt
- T
he e xte nt to whic h sc ho o ls/ o rg a nisa tio ns c o nside r a nd a pply the syste ms a ppro a c h to L OA’ s whe n c o nduc ting risk a sse ssme nts is no t c le a r.
RE SE ARCH QUE ST IONS
1. T
- wha t e xte nt a re risk a sse ssme nt
me tho ds in b o th the L OA se c to r a nd o the r sa fe ty-c ritic a l do ma ins, unde rpinne d b y syste ms the o ry? 2. Wha t c ha lle ng e s a nd b a rrie rs e xist fo r L OA pra c titio ne rs in re la tio n to risk a sse ssme nts? 3. Ca n we inte g ra te a syste ms thinking –b a se d a ppro a c h to risk a sse ssme nt de sig n a nd de ve lo pme nt? 4. Do e s a syste ms thinking -b a se d risk a sse ssme nt me tho d a c hie ve a c c e pta b le le ve ls o f re lia b ility a nd va lidity?
SYST E MS T HINKING
Adverse events Real, invisible, safety boundary Economic failure boundary Unacceptable workload boundary Boundary defined by
- fficial work practices
MANGAT E POPO GORGE T RAGE DY
PIL OT ST UDY 1 – HOW ARE L OA PROGRAMS CONDUCT ING RISK ASSE SSME NT S (RA’S)?
- 4 L
OA RA’ s a na lyse d to a sse ss the e xte nt to whic h the y we re unde rpinne d b y c o nte mpo ra ry syste ms thinking .
- T
he ‘ PE E ’ a ppro a c h
Government department decisions and actions Regulatory bodies and associations Local area government, schools and parents Activity centre management planning and budgeting Supervisory and management decisions and actions Decisions and actions of leaders, participants and other actors at the scene of the incident Equipment, environment and meteorological conditions
Student numbers Medical conditions (3) Burns (3) Slips and trips (1) Trailer reversing (1) Chafing (1) Jumping (1) Limited skill (1) Dehydration (1) Strains and sprains (2) Diving (1) Exhaustion (1) Fatigue (1) Abduction (1) Falls (3) Special needs group (1) High risk behaviour (1) Injury from arrow (1) Allergic reaction (3) Abrasions (1) Fractures (3) Negative impact with another group (1) Lost student (1) Infection (1) Sloping ground (1) Environment being harmed by human (1) Wild animals (1) Exposed ridges/hollows (1) Treed campsite (1) Cattle grids (1) Steep terrain (1) Unknown site (1) Lightning (2) Animal bites/stings (3) Tree fall (1) Road hazards (1) Water visibility (1) Rips (2) Temperature hot/cold (3) Weather conditions (2) Drowning (3) Water quality (2) Falling objects (1) Heights (1) Fire (1) Sharks (1) Exposure (1) Sunburn (1) Clothing entangled in bike (1) Bike failure (1) Communication device failure (1) Trailer decoupling (1) Arts and crafts material (allergic reaction to) (1) Vehicles (1) Jewellery (1) Equipment failure (1)
RQ1: T
- what e xte nt ar
e r isk asse ssme nt me tho ds in bo th the L OA se c to r and
- the r
safe ty-c r itic al do mains, unde r pinne d by a syste ms appr
- ac h?
ST UDY 2 - L OA PRACT IT IONE R SURVE Y (N=97)
F indings:
- Syste ms thinking -b a se d RA me tho ds a re no t
b e ing use d in L OA
- Bra insto rming , prio r e xpe rie nc e & ‘ PE
E ’ pro c e ss driving RA pro c e ss
- I
n g e ne ra l, a pic ture o f c o nfusio n a nd unc e rta inty in re la tio n to c o nduc ting risk a sse ssme nts, a s we ll a s a la c k o f po lic y g uida nc e a nd fo rma l tra ining , wa s o b se rve d.
- Only a sma ll pro po rtio n o f the po te ntia l risks
a ro und L OA pr
- gr
am de ve lopme nt, planning and de live r y a re c urre ntly b e ing ide ntifie d
a nd a sse sse d.
RQ1: T
- what e xte nt
ar e r isk asse ssme nt me tho ds in bo th the L OA se c to r and o the r safe ty-c r itic al do mains, unde r pinne d by a syste ms appr
- ac h?
RQ2: What me thods, appr
- ac he s,
c halle nge s and bar r ie r s e xist for L OA pr ac titione r s in r e lation to r isk asse ssme nts?
Da lla t, C., Go o d e , N., & Sa lmo n, P.M. (2017). “She ’ ll b e rig ht”. Or Will She ? Pra c titio ne r pe rspe c tive s o n risk a sse ssme nt fo r le d o utd o o r a c tivitie s in Austra lia . Jo urnal o f Adve nture E duc atio n and Outdo o r L e arning . DOI: 10.1080/ 14729679.2017.1377090
L OA RISK ASSE SSME NT
Figure 5 Accimap representing the LOA system level where the risks identified for assessment reside (adapted from Salmon et al, 2010)
Regulatory Bodies and Associations Government Departments Local area government parents and schools Activity Centre Management, planning and budgeting Supervisory and management decisions and actions Decisions and actions of leaders, participants and other actors at the scene of the incident Equipment, environment and meteorological conditions
Activity (40%) Group (10%) Venue (20%) Staff (6%) Weather/ Geography (9%) Program (9%) Equipment (4%) “Participant, equipment environment” (3%)
Government policy and budgeting Regulatory bodies & associations Local area Government, Schools and Activity centre management, planning and budgeting Technical & operational management Physical processes & actor activities Equipment & surroundings
Anglesea Kayaking Incident Accimap
High wind speeds (110Kms per hour) Two seater sit on top kayaks (activity) Availability of IRBs Reef in proximity to activity Supervising staff not aware
- f gale warning
Selection of kayaking ‘teams’ Initiation of activity Kayakers drift out of sheltered area Inability to paddle against high winds Varying levels of experience across participants Emergency rescue plan Two seater sit on top kayaks (recovery) No formal dynamic risk assessment Activity risk assessment (surfing based, did not assess hazards related to wind strength) DET guidelines not worked through Staff not fully qualified Use of weather information Teachers attempt rescue Students attempt rescue 3 kayaks situated beyond the break Inability to make headway and further capsizes IRBs used to retrieve kayakers Participants swim to reef IRBs used to retrieve participants from reef Capsizing of kayaks Activity planning Reliance on experience for dynamic risk assessment On water supervision Absence of formal training around DET guidelines DET guidelines (Suitability for aquatic activities) Request for review
- f guidelines not
followed up Absence of mandate for guidelines Inadequate compliance checking requirement Strong cultural attachment to OE program at Brauer Out of date risk assessment Hire company 10 year relationship with college Principal and school council’s understanding
- f compliance
Staff highly experienced in activity Strong trust in group ability Pre-activity meeting
THE SYSTEMS APPROACH AND LOA RISK ASSESSMENT
Adverse events Real, invisible, safety boundary Economic failure boundary Unacceptable workload boundary Boundary defined by
- fficial work practices
ST UDY 3 - RE VIE W OF T HE RISK ASSE SSME NT L IT E RAT URE
Me thod:
- N=342
- Ra smusse n’ s (1997) se ve n te ne ts o f
a c c ide nt c a usa tio n use d to e va lua te e xte nt to whic h me tho ds we re unde rpinne d b y syste ms a ppro a c h
F indings:
- Mo st RA me tho ds do no t use syste ms
thinking -b a se d a ppro a c h. Ra the r, the y a do pt line a r, c ha in-o f e ve nt pe rspe c tive
- Conc lusion – majority of risk asse ssme nt
me thods are not aligne d with c urre nt unde rstanding of ac c ide nt c ausation
Da lla t, C., Sa lmo n, P.M., & Go o de , N. (2017). Risky syste ms ve rsus Risky pe o ple : T
- wha t e xte nt do risk a sse ssme nt me tho ds
c o nside r the syste ms a ppro a c h to a c c ide nt c a usa tio n? A re vie w o f the lite ra ture . Safe ty Sc ie nc e . http:/ / dx.do i.o rg / 10.1016/ j.ssc i.2017.03.012
RQ1: T
- what e xte nt ar
e r isk asse ssme nt me tho ds in bo th the L OA se c to r and o the r safe ty- c r itic al do mains, unde r pinne d by a syste ms appr
- ac h?
ST UDY 4 – DE SIGN & CASE ST UDY APPL ICAT ION OF NE W SYST E MS T HINKING- BASE D RA ME T HOD
- NE
T
- HARMS wa s de sig ne d to suppo rt pra c titio ne rs
in ide ntifying a ) risks a c ro ss o ve ra ll wo rk syste ms, a nd b ) e me rg e nt risks tha t a re c re a te d whe n risks a c ro ss the syste m inte ra c t with o ne a no the r.
- F
irst RA me tho d to spe c ific a lly ide ntify e me rg e nt risks
- Use s a nd/ o r a da pts Hie ra rc hic a l T
a sk Ana lysis (Anne tt e t a l., 1971), SHE RPA (E mb re y, 1986) & T a sk Ne two rks (Sta nto n e t a l., 2013).
- F
inding s sho w tha t NE T
- HARMS is c a pa b le o f
fo re c a sting syste mic a nd e me rg e nt risks, a nd tha t it c o uld ide ntify a lmo st a ll c o ntrib uto ry fa c to rs tha t fe a ture d in the a c c ide nts in a c o mpa riso n da ta se t (Va n Mulke n e t a l., 2017).
Da lla t, C., Sa lmo n, P. M., & Go o de , N. (2017). T he NE T wo rke d Ha za rd Ana lysis a nd Risk Ma na g e me nt Syste m (NE T
- HARMS).
T he o re tic a l I ssue s in E rg o no mic s Sc ie nc e , DOI :10.1080/ 1463922X.2017.1381197.
RQ3: Can we inte gr ate a syste ms thinking –base d appr
- ac h to r
isk asse ssme nt de sign and de ve lopme nt?
ST E P 1 - HT A OF A 5 DAY L OA RAF T ING AND CAMPING PROGRAM
- 0. Plan and deliver a five day led
- utdoor activity program
Plan O: Do 1, then do 2, then 3, then 4, then 5 then EXIT.
- 1. Initiate
Program Design
- 2. Design
Program
- 5. Post
Program Review
- 3. Program
Planning & Preparation
- 4. Delivery
Plan 1: Do 1.1 then 1.2 to 1.6 in any order, then do 1.7 and 1.8, then EXIT 1.1.Establish need 1.2 Select date and activity type 1.3 Determine resources 1.4 Determine program delivery model 1.5 Determine staffing model 1.6 Check Insurance 1.7 Determine external guidelines (e.g. DE&T, AAS) 1.8 Work within existing policy/ guideline framework 2.1 Determine desired
- utcomes
2.2 Consider/ determine participant characteristics 2.3 Choose activity(ies) 2.4 Choose location (s) 2.5 Determine resource and staffing requirements 2.6 Conduct compliance/ quality checks 2.7 Develop program
- utline
3.1 Provide/ exchange information w/ participants/parents (e.g. medical) 3.2 Provide info to participants/ parents (e.g. clothing, logistics) 3.3 Establish parent consent 3.4 Recruit staff 3.5 Plan resources 3.6 Establish venue specific information & familiarisation 3.7 Gain appropriate permits 3.8 Confirm venue/ accommodation / catering details 3.9 Prepare program information pack (for staff) 3.10 Staff Briefing 4.1 Final staff attending program review and confirmation 4.2 Travel to program location 4.3 Unpack equipment and set-up 4.4 Meet & greet 4.5 Initial program briefing (program/ emergency information) 4.6 Equipment issue 4.7 Supervisory team discuss expectations & working relationship 4.8 Review pre- existing medical&dietary needs 4.9 Activity briefing & demo 4.10 Dynamic
- n-program risk
assessment 4.11 Commence and complete activity 4.12 Food prep & management 4.13 Water management 4.14 Site management 4.15 Incident response 4.16 Pack up & equip de-issue 4.17 Participant transportation home 4.18 Staff transportation home 4.19 Unload equipment at home base 3.11 Participant preparation activities 3.12 Pre- Program Dynamic Risk Assessment 3.13 Determine contingencies 3.14 Plan crisis management 3.15 Plan on- program communicatio ns 5.2 Debrief & evaluation with participants and staff 5.3 Review and update risk assessment 5.4 Budget analysis and reconciliation 5.1 Review incident reports
Plan 3: Do 3.1 and 3.2, then do 3.3, then 3.4 to 3.8 in any order. Then do 3.9 and 3.10. Then, if participant preparation activities are required, do 3.11. Then, do 3.12, then 3.13, then 3.14, then 3.15 and then EXIT. Plan 2: Do 2.1 and 2.2. Then do 2.3 – 2.6 in any order, then do 2.7, then 2.8, then EXIT. Plan 4: Do 4.1, then 4.2, then 4.3, then 4.4, then 4.5. If equipment required, then do 4.6, then 4.7 and 4.8 and then do 4.9. Then do 4.10 to 4.14
- continuously. If incident occurs, then do 4.15.
When activity completed, then do 4.16, then do 4.17, then do 4.18, then do 4.19, then EXIT. Plan 5: If incident occurred, do 5.1, then do 5.2, then 5.3, then 5.4, then EXIT. If no incident occurred, do 5.2, then do 5.3, then do 5.4, then EXIT.
2.8 Conduct Organisational Risk Assessment
- Ba se d o n SHE
RPA (E mb re y, 1986)
- T
he ta xo no my is the c o nsiste nt filte r thro ug h whic h we ide ntify a nd a sse ss risks
ST E P 2 – NE T
- HARMS T
AXONOMY
TASK STEP FROM HTA
RISKS
PRE DICT ING L OA T ASK RISKS – E XAMPL E S
3.3 establish parent consent E1 Room too noisy/ env unsuitable/ too much info/ parents busy/ distracted Incomplete info. Not fully informed. Not
- understood. Not full consent.
HTA Task Risk mode Risk description Risk consequence
Staff member may miss important aspects of briefing relevant to management of risk Staff members do not have time to develop/evaluate appropriate risk controls T1 Staff briefing undertaken late (e.g. on the bus, immediately before program) 3.10 Staff Briefing Potential for key information not to be communicated prior to activity (e.g. how to use satellite phone, behavior expectations, group communication methods, where first aid kit is, epi pen locations) Mismatch in expectations e.g. between provider and school T2 Expectations and working relationship not discussed 4.7. Supervisory team discuss expectations and working relationship
- 0. Plan and deliver a five day led
- utdoor activity program
Plan O: Do 1, then do 2, then 3, then 4, then 5 then EXIT.
- 1. Initiate
Program Design
- 2. Design
Program
- 5. Post
Program Review
- 3. Program
Planning & Preparation
- 4. Delivery
Plan 1: Do 1.1 then 1.2 to 1.6 in any order, then do 1.7 and 1.8, then EXIT 1.1.Establish need 1.2 Select date and activity type 1.3 Determine resources 1.4 Determine program delivery model 1.5 Determine staffing model 1.6 Check Insurance 1.7 Determine external guidelines (e.g. DE&T, AAS) 1.8 Work within existing policy/ guideline framework 2.1 Determine desired
- utcomes
2.2 Consider/ determine participant characteristics 2.3 Choose activity(ies) 2.4 Choose location (s) 2.5 Determine resource and staffing requirements 2.6 Conduct compliance/ quality checks 2.7 Develop program
- utline
3.1 Provide/ exchange information w/ participants/parents (e.g. medical) 3.2 Provide info to participants/ parents (e.g. clothing, logistics) 3.3 Establish parent consent 3.4 Recruit staff 3.5 Plan resources 3.6 Establish venue specific information & familiarisation 3.7 Gain appropriate permits 3.8 Confirm venue/ accommodation / catering details 3.9 Prepare program information pack (for staff) 3.10 Staff Briefing 4.1 Final staff attending program review and confirmation 4.2 Travel to program location 4.3 Unpack equipment and set-up 4.4 Meet & greet 4.5 Initial program briefing (program/ emergency information) 4.6 Equipment issue 4.7 Supervisory team discuss expectations & working relationship 4.8 Review pre- existing medical&dietary needs 4.9 Activity briefing & demo 4.10 Dynamic
- n-program risk
assessment 4.11 Commence and complete activity 4.12 Food prep & management 4.13 Water management 4.14 Site management 4.15 Incident response 4.16 Pack up & equip de-issue 4.17 Participant transportation home 4.18 Staff transportation home 4.19 Unload equipment at home base 3.11 Participant preparation activities 3.12 Pre- Program Dynamic Risk Assessment 3.13 Determine contingencies 3.14 Plan crisis management 3.15 Plan on- program communicatio ns 5.2 Debrief & evaluation with participants and staff 5.3 Review and update risk assessment 5.4 Budget analysis and reconciliation 5.1 Review incident reports
Plan 3: Do 3.1 and 3.2, then do 3.3, then 3.4 to 3.8 in any order. Then do 3.9 and 3.10. Then, if participant preparation activities are required, do 3.11. Then, do 3.12, then 3.13, then 3.14, then 3.15 and then EXIT. Plan 2: Do 2.1 and 2.2. Then do 2.3 – 2.6 in any order, then do 2.7, then 2.8, then EXIT. Plan 4: Do 4.1, then 4.2, then 4.3, then 4.4, then 4.5. If equipment required, then do 4.6, then 4.7 and 4.8 and then do 4.9. Then do 4.10 to 4.14
- continuously. If incident occurs, then do 4.15.
When activity completed, then do 4.16, then do 4.17, then do 4.18, then do 4.19, then EXIT. Plan 5: If incident occurred, do 5.1, then do 5.2, then 5.3, then 5.4, then EXIT. If no incident occurred, do 5.2, then do 5.3, then do 5.4, then EXIT.
2.8 Conduct Organisational Risk Assessment
T ASK NE T WORK
T ASK S ARE RE L AT E D WIT H ONE ANOT HE R IF T HE CONDUCT OF ONE T ASK INF L UE NCE S, IS UNDE RT AK E N IN COMBINAT ION WIT H, OR IS DE PE NDE NT ON, ANOT HE R T ASK
1.1.Establish need 1.2 Select date and activity type 1.3 Determine resources 1.4 Determine program delivery model 1.6 Insurance 1.7 Determine external guidelines (e.g. DE&T, AAS) 1.8 Work within existing policy/ guideline framework 2.4 Choose location (s) 2.1 Determine desired outcomes 2.2 Consider/ determine participant characteristics 2.3 Choose activity(ies) 2.5 Determine resource and staffing requirements 2.6 Conduct Compliance/ quality checks 2.7 Develop program outline 2.8 Organisational Risk Assessment 3.1 Provide/ exchange information w/ participants/ parents (e.g. medical) 3.8 Confirm venue/ accommodation details 3.4 Recruit staff 3.5 Plan resources 3.6 Establish venue specific information & familiarisation 3.7 Gain appropriate permits 3.11 Participant preparation activities 3.2 Provide info to participants/ parents (e.g. clothing, logistics) 3.10 Staff Briefing 3.3 Establish parent consent 3.12 Pre-Program Dynamic Risk Assessment 4.2 Travel to program location 4.4 Meet & greet 4.6 Equipment issue 4.3 Unpack equipment and set-up 4.5 Initial program briefing (program/ emergency info) 4.8 Review pre- existing medical&dietary needs 4.9 Activity briefing & demo 4.7 Supervisory team discuss expectations & working relationship 4.10 Dynamic on- program risk assessment 4.11 Commence and complete activity 4.12 Food prep, mgmt, delivery and consumption 4.19 Unload equipment at base 4.14 Site management 4.15 Incident response 4.16 Pack up & equip de-issue 4.13 Water management 4.17 Participant transportation home 4.18 Staff transportation home 5.3 Review and update risk assessment 5.1 Review incident reports 5.2 Debrief & evaluation with participants and staff 5.4 Budget analysis and reconciliation 3.9 Prepare program information pack (for staff) 3.14 Plan crisis management 3.15 Plan on- program communications 3.13 Determine contingencies 4.1 Final staff attending program review and confirmation 1.5 Determine staffing model
ST E P 3 – E ME RGE NT RISK PRE DICT ION E me rg e nt risks a re ne w risks c re a te d a s a re sult
- f the inte ra c tio n
b e twe e n ta sk risks a nd
- the r ta sks
AL L ABOUT T HE INT E RACT IONS…
Be c a use the ‘ lo c a tio n
c ho ic e wa s no t c o nside re d in the de sig n pha se ’ , is it
possible tha t the ta sk
- f:
c ould be c onduc te d…
E ME RGE NT RISK E XAMPL E : 2.4 CHOOSE L OCAT ION
Location choice may not be suitable for the program. T2 Location choice is not considered in the design phase 2.4 Choose Location
2.4 Choose Location 2.7 Develop program outline 3.3 Establish parent consent 2.8 Conduct
- rganisational risk
assessment 2.5 Determine resource and staffing requirements 3.2 Provide info to participants/ parents (e.g. clothing/ logistical
HTA Task Risk mode Risk description Risk consequence
E ME RGE NT RISK E XAMPL E S
HTA TA Ta Task Task R Risk D k Description Linke ked T Task Risk M k Mode Eme merg rgent Risk D Descri ription 3.5 Plan resources Adequate resources are not planned for the whole program 4.15 Incident response T3 Insufficient resource planning for inclement weather and therefore an inadequate ability to respond to incident in a timely fashion (e.g. no spare vehicles for quick response for whole group evacuation – buses are gone)
NE T
- HARMS Ca se study a pplic a tio n ide ntifie d:
- Appro xima te ly 200 ta sk risks
- Appro xima te ly 1400 e me rg e nt risks
- 1200 a sso c ia te d with the de sig n,
pla nning a nd re vie w ta sks
- 200 a sso c ia te d with de live ry ta sks
- Ove ra ll, Study 4 de mo nstra te d the
e xiste nc e o f 5.8 time s mo re e me rg e nt risks in the syste m tha n ta sk risks.
NE T
- HARMS CASE
ST UDY APPL ICAT ION
Da lla t, C., Sa lmo n, P. M., & Go o de , N. (2017). T he NE T wo rke d Ha za rd Ana lysis a nd Risk Ma na g e me nt Syste m (NE T
- HARMS). T
he o re tic a l I ssue s in E rg o no mic s Sc ie nc e , DOI :10.1080/ 1463922X.2017.1381197.
ST UDY 5 – RE L IABIL IT Y & VAL IDIT Y T E ST ING OF NE T
- HARMS
- T
he study invo lve d c o mpa ring the risks ide ntifie d b y two g ro ups o f a na lysts (L OA a nd Huma n F a c to rs re se a rc he rs) with a n e xpe rt risk a sse ssme nt
- f the sa me wo rk syste m
- L
OA pra c titio ne rs wo rke d a c ro ss the L OA syste m
- Study de mo nstra te d tha t va lidity c a n b e
e nha nc e d b y a na lyst po o ling pro c e ss (vs. sing le a na lyst) (Sta nto n, 2009; Co rne lisse n e t a l, 2014)
- F
inding s sug g e st the ne e d fo r sig nific a nt re think in te rms o f the me tho ds a nd a ppro a c he s c urre ntly use d in RA
Da lla t, C., Sa lmo n, P. M., & Go o de , N. (Unde r re vie w). T e sting the va lidity o f a ne w risk a sse ssme nt me tho d: the NE T
- wo rke d
Ha za rd Ana lysis a nd Risk Ma na g e me nt Syste m (NE T
- HARMS).
RQ4: Doe s a syste ms thinking- base d r isk asse ssme nt me thod ac hie ve ac c e ptable le ve ls of r e liability and validity?
IMPORT ANCE OF MUL T IPL E ANAL YST S RE PRE SE NT ING T HE WHOL E SYST E M
T a sk E me rg e nt
RE SE ARCH CONT RIBUT IONS
- T
he ore tic al
- Applic a tio n a nd te sting o f syste ms the o ry in a risk
a sse ssme nt c o nte xt. Re sults sho w tha t risks e xist a c ro ss a so c io -te c hnic a l syste m.
- Me thodologic al
- NE
T
- HARMS
- Po o ling o f a na lysts re sults (Study 2 vs. Study 5)
- Appe a rs tha t ha ving b o th do ma in-spe c ific a nd huma n
fa c to rs e xpe rtise le a ds to mo re ide ntifie d risks
- Prac tic al
- Pra c tic a l, e a sy to use , b e ne fits o f HT
A to o rg a nisa tio n
- Ste p b y ste p g uide a va ila b le a s to ho w to use NE
T
- HARMS
- Sho uldn’ t b e a n individua l c o nduc ting risk a sse ssme nts
- Impo rta nc e o f invo lve me nt fro m multiple pe o ple
re pre se nting diffe re nt pe rspe c tive s fro m a c ro ss the wo rk syste m
- Alre a dy b e ing a pplie d in pra c tic e
T RANSL AT ION INT O PRACT ICE
“NET-HARMS gave me a much broader and more structured format for the risk identification process, as opposed to the more common brainstorming hazard and risk identification approach. Clare’s tool has made it much easier to identify the many areas
- f potential risks in the planning
processes of outdoor learning programs and to help identify their many flow on effects and potential hazards during the actual delivery
- f program.” (Katelyn Caldwell, Wodonga
TAFE).
L IMIT AT IONS AND F UT URE RE SE ARCH
- NE
T
- HARMS no t ye t te ste d a g a inst o the r
syste ms RA me tho ds (e .g . ST PA, F RAM, E AST )
- T
his is pla nne d thro ug h upc o ming Disc o ve ry pro je c t
- NE
T
- HARMS c a se study c o mple te d o n
hig he r le ve l L OA de sig n, pla nning a nd c o nduc t ta sks (e .g . Co mme nc e a nd c o mple te a c tivity).
- AL
ARP
- Ho w o rg a nisa tio n’ s c a n pra c tic a lly
a ddre ss risks ide ntifie d
HUGE T HANKS T O:
- Pro fe sso r Pa ul Sa lmo n
- Dr. Na ta ssia Go o de
- T
he Outdo o r E duc a tio n Gro up
- T
he CHF ST S
- T
he L OA pro fe ssio na ls who c o ntrib ute d time a nd e xpe rtise
- All pa rtic ipa nts in the studie s