Research Paper > RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN WATER PROJECT IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA PREPARED BY MINA GADELRAB

downloaded from

Scholarfriends

https://scholarfriends.com Downloaded by: writerforacademic@gmail.com | https://scholarfriends.com/singlePaper/273558/research-paper-risk-management-plan-waterproject-in-sub-saharan-africa-prepared-by-mina-gadelrab Distribution of this document is illegal.

MARCH 19, 2014

RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN WATER PROJECT IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA PREPARED BY MINA GADELRAB 11584190

Risk Management Plan – 11584190

TABLE OF CONTENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 3 1.

2.

3.

4.

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 4 1.1.

Project Information ..................................................................................................... 4

1.2.

Project Scope ............................................................................................................... 5

1.3.

Project Objectives ....................................................................................................... 5

1.4.

Risk Management Process .......................................................................................... 5

COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION PLAN ................................................ 6 2.1.

Main Objectives .......................................................................................................... 6

2.2.

Stakeholders Analysis ................................................................................................. 6

ESTABLISHING CONTEXT ......................................................................................... 8 3.1.

Internal Context ........................................................................................................... 8

3.2.

External Context .......................................................................................................... 8

3.3.

Risk Management Context ........................................................................................ 10

3.4.

Risk Criteria .............................................................................................................. 10

3.5.

Stakeholders .............................................................................................................. 10

3.6.

Roles and Responsibilities ........................................................................................ 11

3.7.

Risk Management Policy .......................................................................................... 11

RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS ................................................................................. 12 4.1.

4.1.1.

Identification Method ......................................................................................... 12

4.1.2.

Risk Scope .......................................................................................................... 12

4.1.3.

Risk Register ...................................................................................................... 12

4.2.

Risk Analysis............................................................................................................. 13

4.2.1.

Analysis Method ................................................................................................. 13

4.2.2.

Existing Risk Controls........................................................................................ 14

4.2.3.

Risk Acceptance Criteria ................................................................................... 14

4.3.

5.

Risk Identification ..................................................................................................... 12

Risk Evaluation ......................................................................................................... 15

4.3.1.

Evaluation Method ............................................................................................. 15

4.3.2.

Key Risks for Treatment ..................................................................................... 15

RISK TREATMENT ...................................................................................................... 16 5.1.

Probable Treatment Options...................................................................................... 16

5.2.

Effective Treatment Option ....................................................................................... 16

Risk Management in Engineering | 49006

Page 1 of 26

Risk Management Plan – 11584190

6.

RISK MONITORING AND REVIEW ........................................................................ 17 6.1.

Process....................................................................................................................... 17

6.2.

Risk Closure .............................................................................................................. 17

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 18 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ 19 Appendix A: Risk Identification Checklist .......................................................................... 19 Appendix B: Risk Register ................................................................................................... 20 Appendix C: FMEA Analysis .............................................................................................. 22 Appendix D: Example .......................................................................................................... 23 Appendix E: Risk Treatment Table ...................................................................................... 25

Risk Management in Engineering | 49006

Page 2 of 26

Risk Management Plan – 11584190

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document provides the risk management plan for the water project to be constructed in Sub-Saharan Africa. It was prepared by Voss Foundation in accordance with the Australian risk management standard AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009.

Firstly a brief introduction to the project is presented showing the location of the project with the estimated budget and duration. In addition, the scope of work and main objectives of this project are defined.

Secondly, plans for communication and consultation are developed to ensure efficiency in addressing risk issues and how to treat them. These plans are based on analysing stakeholders to identify which parties have higher power and interest.

Thirdly, the context is established by defining the organisation’s internal and external context, in addition to its risk management context and risk criteria. All relevant stakeholders are identified and categorised. Moreover, responsibilities for each person within the organisation are defined.

Subsequently, risks are identified, analysed and evaluated in the risk assessment section based on IEC/ISO 31010:2009. Each step used a specific method to fulfil the required purpose.

Brainstorming and checklists are used to identify risks; as a result 15 risks related to public health and safety were identified and recorded in the risk register. Afterward, those identified risks are analysed in terms of likelihood and consequences using a qualitative risk assessment matrix. And finally, ALARP is used in the evaluation process and 7 key risks were chosen for further treatment.

Later, the organisation listed the probable treatment options for those risks and established a strategy for choosing the effective treatment option. A risk treatment table is developed showing the possible treatment option, responsible person and the rating after applying the chosen treatment. FMEA is used as an analytical method to summarise all potential failure modes, their causes and recommended controls in one table. As a result, it can be seen that all potential risks are reduced by 40%, which is acceptable, except the contamination of groundwater and pH / Acidity; therefore, the organisation needs to focus more on these two risks since the implemented treatment is not enough.

Finally, monitoring and reviewing context is established by setting periodic measures in different forms; as checklists, inspections, audits and others. A third party will be appointed to perform a quarterly audit to assess organisation’s framework. In addition, after satisfying a certain criteria, a risk can be closed and removed from the risk register.

Risk Management in Engineering | 49006

Page 3 of 26

Risk Management Plan – 11584190

1. INTRODUCTION It is essential to identify and manage risks to achieve the organisation’s objectives.

Accordingly, Voss Foundation is establishing this Risk Management Plan in accordance with AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 to address and manage potential risks in this project.

In this section, a brief introduction on the project is set followed by the project scope showing the estimated budget and finally the objectives of undertaking such project in the region of Samburu.

1.1. Project Information In rural Africa, Ndonyo Nasipa is one of the villages having a total population of approximately 1,500 personnel located in the Samburu region of northern Kenya that suffers from water poverty (Voss Foundation 2011).

The project aims to construct a pumped well powered by solar panels in addition to storage tank with plumbing system to serve that small community. The whole project is divided into three different phases. Phase one is to construct the main body of the well, phase two is to excavate trenches for the pipelines and finally phase three is involved with the installation of storage tank, solar panels, pumping system and water points.

This water project is funded by Voss Foundation, a non-profit organisation. The main objective of this organisation is to provide clean water through a sustainable system to the communities in Samburu region.

Figure 1: Site Location (Voss Foundation 2011).

Risk Management in Engineering | 49006

Page 4 of 26

Risk Management Plan – 11584190

1.2. Project Scope As mentioned earlier, the project is divided into three main phases; each phase is focused on delivering a specific function as follows:   

Phase 1: Excavation of the well and installation of reinforced concrete wall.

Phase 2: Digging trenches and installation of the pipeline system.

Phase 3: Installation of storage tank, solar panel, pumping system and water points.

It is essential to choose the location of the well, as a result, a preliminary survey is to be conducted to assess the location choice. The project budget is estimated to be $54,440 with a total duration of 5 months (Voss Foundation 2011).

1.3. Project Objectives Based on the study, people of Ndonyo Nasipa do not have access to clean water and the nearest water source is located 4 kilometres away from the village (Voss Foundation 2011). Thus, the main objective of this project is to provide the community of Ndonyo Nasipa with a clean drinking water from a sustainable source and reduce effort and time spent on collecting water.

1.4. Risk Management Process As shown in “Figure 2”, Voss Foundation is committed to follow the standard while preparing this risk management plan. The following sections will focus on each process in details.

Figure 2: Risk Management Process (Standards Australia 2009).

Risk Management in Engineering | 49006

Page 5 of 26

Risk Management Plan – 11584190

2. COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION PLAN Voss Foundation recognizes the importance of a preparing a good multi-directional communication and consultation plan. It plays a vital part by ensuring the nature of different risks and their significance are effectively communicated between various parties of the project.

2.1. Main Objectives Voss Foundation has established the following communication strategy to transfer data between relevant stakeholders quickly and efficiently. The process of involving various parties achieves the organisation’s objectives, which are:     

Ensure the effectiveness of transferring data to stakeholders on the right time for further actions.

Gain the knowledge of other parties when dealing with risks.

Keep them informed and updated with the status of the project and the associated risk.

Raise their awareness regarding the responsibilities of each person involved in the project; including themselves.

Understand stakeholder’s interest and work on achieving it.

2.2. Stakeholders Analysis It is essential to understand and recognize stakeholder’s interest and their influence power on the project. As a result, the Power-Interest Grid technique is used to achieve that as shown in “Figure 3”. By doing so, the organisation will be able to focus more on those with higher power and interest. On the other hand, those with lower power and interest will be communicated through preparation of seminars from time to time.

Please refer to section (3.5) for all stakeholders related to this project.

Risk Management in Engineering | 49006

Page 6 of 26

Risk Management Plan – 11584190

High

 

Suppliers Funding Resources 

Partners 

 Staff 

Power

Local Authorities 





Low

Land Owner

Department of Water Affairs and Environmental Forestry Agencies

Local Residents

Interest

LEGEND: Red: Manage Closely Orange: Keep Satisfied Yellow: Keep Informed Green: Monitor High

Figure 3: Power-Interest Grid of Stakeholders

The above figure defines four major power-interest areas; Manage Closely, Keep Satisfied, Keep Informed and Monitor. In the following table, each of those areas are defined showing the appropriate communication method to be used.

Table 1: Communication Method based on Power-Interest Grid Region Power-Interest Region Manage Closely

Keep Satisfied

Keep Informed

Monitor

Communication Method Formal communication methods to be used such as regular meetings, telephones, e-mails and letters. This will ensure the accurate exchange of information on time. Staff will use e-mails as their main communication method.

At this region of grid, face-to-face meetings become essential. This will maintain good relation with stakeholders (e.g. partners). Moreover, formal reporting should be used when reporting the project financial status (i.e. to be sent to organisation’s funding resources).

It is vital to keep local authorities and environmental agencies informed; thus, formal letters and e-mails will be used for getting the required approvals. In addition, face-to-face meeting will be used to communicate with village representative thus ensuring that no major issue would arise.

Minor communication will take place. However, periodic seminars will be held to inform local residents on the status of the project and raise their awareness.

Risk Management in Engineering | 49006

Page 7 of 26

Risk Management Plan – 11584190

3. ESTABLISHING CONTEXT In accordance with AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009, it is necessary to define the context by outlining internal and external context, risk criteria, relevant stakeholders, roles and responsibilities, and finally the risk management policy of the organisation.

3.1. Internal Context Voss Foundation was established in 2008 as a non-profit organisation aiming to raise awareness and provide access to clean drinking water for remote areas in the Sub-Saharan Africa.

According to the financial statement of 2012, the organisation has made a total revenue of $897,916 with expenses of $361,389 (GuideStar 2011).

The organisation realised that access to clean water will have a great influence on investments.

Since its establishment, the organisation has built around 60 water access points with 160 sanitation facilities that serve 100,000 personnel in Africa (Voss Foundation 2014).

Voss Foundation, since its establishment, has created a numerous number of partners. Those partners are examined by the board and staff to insure their dedication to the organisation’s high standards of transparency, efficiency and reporting. The list below shows all the partners that are currently helping the organisation to accomplish its targets:     

A Glimmer of Hope.

FACE Africa.

Georges Malaika Foundation.

Milgis Trust.

Nest.

3.2. External Context The concept of the organisation started with understanding the ‘Ripple Effect’ and how a small drop of clean water will take part in developing a wealthy community as shown in “Figure 4”.

Moreover, it targets on helping the Sub-Saharan’s women as one of their burden is to collect water for their family and themselves. “Figure 5” shows this development in a simple and understandable way where the grey colour indicates community with no access to clean water while the light blue colour shows the effect of clean water.

Risk Management in Engineering | 49006

Page 8 of 26

Risk Management Plan – 11584190

Figure 4: Ripple Effect (Voss Foundation 2012).

Figure 5: Woman's lifecycle with/without access to clean water (Voss Foundation 2012).

In Sub-Saharan region, about 300 million people have no access to clean water, approximately the same population of the United States of America (World Health Organization 2010).

Additionally, by referencing to the annual report prepared by World Bank (2012), unsafe water and poor sanitation lead to higher death rates than those from HIV/AIDS. Hence, the need to provide those communities with safe water is a must.

Voss Foundation has carried out several water projects in the area, and from the challenges they faced before was the absence of suppliers. Consequently, they need to prepare all the materials and equipment in advance. Furthermore, risk arises when an unusual event occurs, therefore, a detailed investigate is required to minimise the likelihood of such events to take place.

Risk Management in Engineering | 49006

Page 9 of 26

Risk Management Plan – 11584190

“Figure 6” summarised the organisational external context in few boxes.

Figure 6: Investing in clean water (Voss Foundation 2014).

3.3. Risk Management Context The main goal of this risk management plan is to minimise any risk that might have adverse effect on its employees, project or organisation’s objectives. The following section, “Risk Assessment Process”, focuses on the approaches used to identify, analyse and evaluate different risks. This risk management plan is designed to provide a structured framework for personnel involved in the project to manage risks. Besides, all risks will be assessed by focusing on one major problem; which is public health and safety.

3.4. Risk Criteria Voss Foundation will not deal with all risks that might occur. Thus, in the analysis and evaluation processes (section 4.2 and 4.3 respectively), the acceptance criteria is defined and key risks are identified.

3.5. Stakeholders As a vital step in establishing the context of this risk management plan, relevant stakeholders to this project are identified and categorised, whether they are internal or external stakeholder, in the following table:

Risk Management in Engineering | 49006

Page 10 of 26

Risk Management Plan – 11584190

Table 2: Stakeholders Internal Stakeholders

External Stakeholders

Voss Foundation Staff

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) Environmental Agencies

Partners

Land Owner

Voss Foundation Board of Directors

Village Representative Suppliers Funding Resources Local Authorities

3.6. Roles and Responsibilities Defining the roles and responsibilities of each person is a key element to ensure successful implementation of the risk management plan. Accordingly, the following table is prepared to specify the responsibility of each person and highlight the key activities that is required to be accomplished.

Position

Board

Risk Manager

Financial Manager

Role / Responsibility Review / Approve risk management plan.

Review / Approve risk assessment.

Review / Approve organisation risk policy.

Assist solving risk issues.

Prepare risk management plan.

Identify appropriate treatment methods.

Prepare contingency plans.

Monitor / Review of risks.

Check / Report the effectiveness of the implemented treatment in terms of budget.

Monitor / Report project budget.

Staff

Ensure the implementation of risk management plan throughout all stages of the project.

Internal Audit

Conduct periodic audits to ensure the successful implementation of risk management processes.

3.7. Risk Management Policy Voss Foundation is obligated to best practice the management of potential risks threating the project in terms of involved persons, objectives and functions. This risk management plan is to be read in conjunction with “AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 – Principles and Guidelines” and “IEC/ISO 31010:2009 – Risk Assessment Techniques”.

Risk Management in Engineering | 49006

Page 11 of 26

Risk Management Plan – 11584190

4. RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS With respect to AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009, this section focuses on the identification, analysis and evaluation of risks related to the established criteria. Techniques used in this section is in accordance with IEC/ISO 31010:2009.

4.1. Risk Identification At this stage, the identification of all possible risks that may have beneficial or adverse effect on the project will take place. It is essential to be aware that only risks related to the established criteria will be recorded.

4.1.1. Identification Method There are a wide range of techniques that are used to identify risks, however, in this risk management plan, only two of those methods are used; which are checklists and brainstorming.

Since the organisation has past experience in such projects, it is an advantage to use its past records in future projects. Therefore, the use of checklists was recommended as the first option.

In addition, brainstorming technique is used to generate other risks associated with the project for further evaluation in later stages. Please refer to “Appendix A” for risk identification checklist.

4.1.2. Risk Scope As mentioned in the context, Voss Foundation has created this risk management plan in accordance with the Australian standards to deal with risks associated within the project. As a result, all risks related to public health and safety are considered and recorded in the risk register.

4.1.3. Risk Register After all possible risks have been formulated, a risk register is used to record and summaries all the findings. To ensure maximum creditability, this risk register will be reviewed and updated through the lifecycle of the project as new risks may arise.

“Appendix B” shows all registered risks.

Risk Management in Engineering | 49006

Page 12 of 26

Risk Management Plan – 11584190

4.2. Risk Analysis This step is involved with analysing probabilities of the identified risks to occur and their consequences. This process assists in the determination of how severe the risk is; based on rating.

4.2.1. Analysis Method A simple qualitative risk assessment matrix is used to define the risk rating in terms of likelihood and consequences. A 5-point rating scale matrix is used (as shown in “Table 3”); this rating allows us to concentrate and prioritise significant risks that need to be managed.

Afterwards, the risk register is updated based on this matrix, thus, providing us with risk rating for each event.

Table 3: Qualitative Risk Assessment Matrix Likelihood

Insignificant 1

Minor 2

Consequences Moderate 3

M

H

H

E

E

M

M

H

H

E

L

M

M

H

E

L

M

M

M

H

L

L

M

M

M

Certain 5 Likely 4 Possible 3 Unlikely 2 Rare 1

Major 4

Catastrophic 5

Based on the organisation’s point of view, “Table 4” provides a brief description for likelihood, consequences and level of risks.

Table 4: Brief Description Level of Risk

Description

L M H E

Low risk – use routine procedures to manage this type of risk Medium risk – acceptable risk but needs to be treated / monitored High risk – needs action from top level management Extreme risk – detailed investigation and treatment is required

(green) (yellow) (orange) (red)

Likelihood Rare Unlikely Possible Likely Certain

Description (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Very unlikely to occur Could occur at some point Reasonable probability of occurrence High probability of occurrence Mostly will occur

Risk Management in Engineering | 49006

Page 13 of 26

Risk Management Plan – 11584190

Consequences Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic

Description (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Resolved by normal procedures (no effort exerted) Small effort to resolve Considerable effort to resolve Requires top management involvement Threaten the whole project (catastrophic failure)

4.2.2. Existing Risk Controls Since Voss Foundation has past experience in such project; the organisation has established a list of possible preliminary controls as shown in column 7 of the FMEA analysis (Appendix C).

4.2.3. Risk Acceptance Criteria Based on the FMEA analysis, the chart below (Figure 7) has been developed to show risks’ RPN (Risk Priority Number) after applying the recommended treatment. It can be noticed that even after treatment the organisation has to focus on two main risks; pH / Acidity and groundwater contamination.

9

8

7

Occurence

6

5 pH / Acidity 4

Temperature / Humidity

Injuries

3

Groundwater Contamination

Local Diseases 2

Digging Depth 1 Pipe Leakage 0 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Severity

Figure 7: Severity / Occurrence Matrix Risk Management in Engineering | 49006

Page 14 of 26

Risk Management Plan – 11584190

4.3. Risk Evaluation Now, after the identification and analysis stages, it is time to evaluate those risks. The organisation has to evaluate all the listed risks in order to focus on those with higher priorities and apply the appropriate treatment. This section defines the used method for evaluation, in accordance with AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009, and list risks that require further treatment.

4.3.1. Evaluation Method For the purpose of evaluation, ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practicable) principle is used to identify those risks and provide priorities of treatment. The use of this method allows the organisation to determine whether further treatment is required or not by considering the benefit gained when treating different risks. “Figure 8” shows ALARP principle with high level risks at the top and low level risks at the bottom. The middle region is defined as ‘Tolerable Region’; as most risks in this area are tolerable.

Unacceptable Region

Tolerable Region

Increasing Individual Risks & Societal Concerns

Acceptable Region

Figure 8: ALARP Principle

4.3.2. Key Risks for Treatment By applying the above method, the organisation has 7 prioritised risks that require attention and further treatment. Those key risks are as listed below in order according to their risk level:       

#05 – Groundwater contamination. #02 – Digging depth. #03 – Exposed reinforcement. #07 – Heavy equipment accidents. #14 – Unprotected excavated well. #01 – Air quality. #11 – pH / Acidity.

Note: For the purpose of clarification, a detailed example is provided in “Appendix D” showing how the risk management processes were undertaken.

Risk Management in Engineering | 49006

Page 15 of 26

Risk Management Plan – 11584190

5. RISK TREATMENT The purpose of this section is mainly focused on the treatment of key risks resulted from the ALARP principle. Based on the Australian standards, a number of options are there to treat different risks based on the situation; whether to avoid, reduce, transfer or accept it.

5.1. Probable Treatment Options Voss Foundation aims to implement one of the following treatment actions in order to either reduce the likelihood or consequences of the nominated risk.

Probable Treatment Actions:  Training of staff.  Applying certain rules and regulations1.  Regular audits2.  Preparation of contingency plan.  Transferring risk to appropriate party3.  Others4.

Please refer to “Appendix E” for the treatment and evaluation of key risks defined in section (4.3.2).

5.2. Effective Treatment Option Certainly there are a number of treatment options for each risk, however, at this stage, it is not possible to distinguish which one best suits the situation in terms of cost, time and feasibility; unless based on past experience. Therefore, Voss Foundation will follow the following steps to ensure the proper choice of treatment strategy.     

Identification of potential treatment options.

Determine the benefits and drawbacks of each option in terms of cost, risk impacts and the new level of risk.

Selection of the best option.

Identify the trigger on which the implementation should take place.

Retain records of the results.

1

Example: PPE must be worn during any construction activity.

Might be internal or external audit.

3 Example: Insurance companies.

4 Please refer to “Appendix E” for further treatments.

2

Risk Management in Engineering | 49006

Page 16 of 26

Risk Management Plan – 11584190

6. RISK MONITORING AND REVIEW 6.1. Process Complying with the standards, it is vital to monitor and review risks continuously. This is recommended since risk is not in a static state and new risks may arise during the construction stage. Thus, the organisation established the following control for periodic monitoring of risks: Table 5: Periodic Monitoring Activity

Frequency

Checklists

Daily

Inspection

Weekly

Risk Register

Weekly

Meetings

Bi-weekly

Internal Audit

Monthly

External Audit

Quarterly

The external, or third party, audit will be held on quarterly bases as shown in the table above.

The main purpose of this is to assess the safety, quality and financial framework of the organisation against standards and performance indicators. Internal audit will focus on organisation’s policy, trigger points / implementation time of treatments and finally the reporting system of risks.

As shown in the risk treatment table (Appendix E), a field for monitoring is placed to ensure the effectiveness of the applied treatment measures.

6.2. Risk Closure It is the responsibility of the risk manager to close5 any risk once the following items are satisfied:   

Treatment actions have been implemented.

Positive response / feedback has been received (i.e. risk reduced).

No occurrence of the same or additional risks as a result of the treatment process.

The closure of risk shall be reviewed and approved by the top management. Afterwards, a documentation of such event is archived.

To “close” a risk means to remove it from the risk register as a result of it being treated and maintained within the acceptable criteria.

5

Risk Management in Engineering | 49006

Page 17 of 26

Risk Management Plan – 11584190

REFERENCES 1. Voss Foundation 2011, ‘Water project in Kenya 2010’, Women helping women – Ndonyo Nasipa, viewed 19 March 2014, <http://www.thevossfoundation.org/assets/Women-HelpingWomen-Ndonyo-Nasipa-project-2010-REV05.pdf>.

2. Standards Australia 2009, Risk Management – Principles and guidelines, AS/NZS ISO 310002009, Standards Australia, Sydney.

3. World Health Organization 2010, ‘Progress on sanitation and drinking-water’, viewed online 19 March 2014, <http://vossfoundation.org/assets/JMP-Report-2010.pdf>.

4. World Bank 2012, ‘Annual Report 2012’, viewed online 19 March <http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTANNREP2012/Resources/87844081346247445238/AnnualReport2012_En.pdf>.

2014,

5. GuideStar 2011, Voss Foundation Inc., viewed 19 March <http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/26-2902820/voss-foundation.aspx>.

2014,

6. Voss Foundation 2014, About, <http://www.vossfoundation.org/about/>.

2014,

viewed

19

March

7. Voss Foundation 2012, ‘Year in Review’, viewed online 19 March <http://vossfoundation.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/assets/VF-Year-in-Review-2012FINAL.pdf>.

Risk Management in Engineering | 49006

2014,

Page 18 of 26

Risk Management Plan – 11584190

APPENDICES Appendix A: Risk Identification Checklist CHECKLIST Project: Location: #

……………………………… ………………………………

Date:

………………

Risk Check Item

Yes / No

Public Health and Safety Checklist 1.

Are diesel / chemicals stored in adequate place (no infiltration to groundwater)?

2.

Are equipment / tools used maintained in good condition?

3.

Are first aid tools checked and secured in place?

4.

Are safety signs / emergency contact numbers posted on site?

5.

7.

Are site visitors wearing the appropriate ID badges?

Are workers exposed to hazardous substances that may cause health issues through inhalation, skin contact or others?

Are workers trained for emergency plan?

8.

Are workers wearing their PPE (Personal Protective Equipment)?

9.

Has a safety induction been conducted prior to construction works?

10.

12.

Has preliminary tests been conducted on water quality?

Have environmental studies been conducted to identify project impact on biodiversity?

Is edge protection around excavation placed?

13.

Is the drilling machine secured in a suitable place (no blind spots)?

14.

Is there any local disease that needs special consideration (e.g. malaria)?

15.

Is the required digging depth reached?

6.

11.

Risk Management in Engineering | 49006

Page 19 of 26

Risk Management Plan – 11584190

Appendix B: Risk Register RISK REGISTER Project: Location:

……………………………… ………………………………

#

Risk

What may happen?

Date:

………………

Rating

Likelihood

Consequences

Risk Level

5

1

M

3

4

H

4

3

H

1

5

M

Health issues

3

5

E

Environmental issues Injuries / Death; Damage of assets Injuries; Time delay

2

3

M

3

4

H

2

2

M

Illness; Time delay

3

3

M

Improper filtration of runoff water

Health issues

2

4

M

Improper choice of well location

Health issues

3

3

M

How it may happen?

Consequences

Public Health and Safety Risks 1.

Air quality

2.

Digging depth

3.

Exposed reinforcement

4.

Flood

5.

Groundwater contamination

6.

Habitat and species

Contamination of groundwater during construction Loss of habitat and species

7.

Heavy equipment accidents

Being struck by plants

Blind spot

8.

Improper material handling

9.

Local diseases

Back injuries Labours got infected (e.g. malaria) Contamination of groundwater due to waste infiltration

Wong lifting position Infection from local community

10. Pathogenic organisms 11. pH / Acidity

Dust / CO2 emission Not reaching the required depth of well Falling on exposed steel bars Labours slipping; Water pollution during construction

Very high / low pH levels

Risk Management in Engineering | 49006

During construction process Unskilled operator Accidental fall Adverse weather condition Infiltration of hazard material (e.g. diesel) Pollution

Health issues; Environmental issues Health issues; Time delay Injuries Injuries; Contaminated groundwater; Time delay

Page 20 of 26

Risk Management Plan – 11584190

RISK REGISTER Project: Location:

……………………………… ………………………………

#

Risk

What may happen?

Date:

How it may happen?

………………

Rating

Likelihood

Consequences

Risk Level

Health issues

2

3

M

Time delay

2

1

L

Consequences

Public Health and Safety Risks Contamination of supplied water Fainting workers due to dehydration

Broken pipes during backfilling Extreme temperature / humidity

14. Unprotected excavated well

Falling into excavated well

Accidental fall / Slipping

Injuries / Death; Time delay

4

4

H

15. Unskilled Labours

Minor accidents (e.g. injured foot)

Stepping on nails without wearing safety shoes

Injuries; Time delay

1

2

L

12. Pipe leakage 13. Temperature / Humidity

Risk Management in Engineering | 49006

Page 21 of 26

Risk Management Plan – 11584190

Appendix C: FMEA Analysis

DET

RPN

SEV

OCC

DET

RPN

% Reduction

2

50

* Work Insurance

* Labours / Operator * Safety Officer

5

3

2

30

40%

5

* Blind spot * Slipping * Unskilled labour * No PPE used

5

* Allocation of machine * Capping of steel * Safety induction * Placing barriers

* Public health issues * Delay of project * High fines * Suspension of license

7

* Unskilled labour * No refuelling equipment used

3

* Safety induction * Storing hazard materials in safe place

2

42

* Regular water tests * Safe storage of hazard materials

* Safety Officer

7

2

2

28

33%

Infection with permanent diseases as a result of direct contact with infected person

* Delay of project

4

* Direct contact with infected person

2

* None

9

72

* Survey of local diseases * Inoculation

* Safety Officer

4

2

4

32

56%

Digging Depth

Not reaching the required depth

* Delay of project * Public health issues * Suspension of payment

6

* Unskilled operator * No supervision

4

* Controlled supervision

4

96

* Controlled supervision * Checking depth on regular intervals

* Foreman * Operator

6

2

3

36

63%

Pipe Leakage

Contamination of supplied water as a result of broken pipe during backfilling

* Public health issues * Suspension of payment * Delay of project closure

5

* Unskilled operator * No supervision * Poor pipe quality

4

* Backfilling on several stages / layers * Material certificate

4

80

* Quality control * Controlled supervision

* Quality Officer * Foreman

5

1

3

15

81%

Temperature / Humidity

Fainting of workers due to dehydration

* Delay of project * Illness

2

* High temperature * High humidity

36

* Safety induction * No work in high temp. * Providing shaded areas

* Safety Officer * Foreman

2

3

2

12

67%

pH / Acidity

* Not reaching the required depth * Improper choice of well location

* Public health issues * Delay of project * High fines * Suspension of license

8

* Rushing the start of project * No supervision

120

* Preliminary water tests to be carried out * Controlled supervision to ensure reaching the required depth

* Manager * Project Engineer * Foreman

8

4

2

96

20%

Potential Failure Mode

Injuries

* Being struck by machine * Falling on exposed steel bars * Improper lifting of materials * Falling into excavated well

* Delay of project * High fines * Suspension of license

Groundwater Contamination

Infiltration of hazard material (e.g. diesel during refuelling of machines)

Local Diseases

Severity

Occurrence

Detectability

Potential Failure Effects

SEV

OCC

Actions Recommended

Current Controls

Item

Potential Causes

6

5

* Safety induction

3

* Preliminary water tests

3

Resp.

Ranking

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Level

None

Very minor

Minor

Very low

Low

Moderate

High

Very high

Extreme

Very Extreme

Ranking

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Level

Remote (I)

Remote (II)

Low (I)

Low (II)

Low (III)

Moderate (I)

Moderate (II)

High (I)

High (II)

Very high

Ranking

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Level

Almost certain

Very high

High

Moderately high

Moderate

Low

Very low

Remote

Very remote

Uncertain

Risk Management in Engineering | 49006

Page 22 of 26

Risk Management Plan – 11584190

Appendix D: Example For the purpose of clarification, this example is aimed to show the applied steps of risk assessment process.

Risk: Pipe Leakage Brief Description: In order to supply water to the community, trenches are going to be excavated to allow for the water pipes to be installed in place. During the backfilling process of the excavated trenches, the machines or equipment used to backfill the trench may cause minor damage to the pipes which by time and load may lead to cause major cracks. If that is the case, then the supplied water will get contaminated which in return will affect the public health of that community.

Analysis Stage (using Qualitative Risk Assessment Matrix): This risk can occur at some point (unlikely), and will have moderate consequences. Therefore, it is a medium risk which is acceptable but needs to be treated and monitored.

Likelihood Certain 5 Likely 4 Possible 3 Unlikely 2 Rare 1

Consequences Moderate 3 H

Major 4

Catastrophic 5

E

E

M

H

H

E

L

M

M

H

E

L

M

M

H

L

L

M

M

Insignificant 1

Minor 2

M

H

M

M M

Analysis Stage (using FMEA): Based on the severity, occurrence and detectability of the risk, it is clear that the RPN would be 80 (5 x 4 x 4).

Risk Pipe Leakage

Severity

Occurrence

Detectability

5

4

4

Risk Management in Engineering | 49006

Page 23 of 26

Risk Management Plan – 11584190

Evaluation Stage: According to the organisation’s risk tolerance, this risk has to be treated since it is above the acceptable limit as shown in the figure below.

9 8 7

Occurence

6 5 4 Pipe Leakage

3 2 1 0 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Severity

Treatment Stage: By applying the recommended actions, the occurrence of this risk has dropped from 4 to 1; which means it is very unlikely to happen. Thus, it is now in the acceptable area.

9 8 7

Occurence

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0

1

2

3

Pipe Leakage 4 5 6

7

8

9

10

Severity

Risk Management in Engineering | 49006

Page 24 of 26

Risk Management Plan – 11584190

Appendix E: Risk Treatment Table RISK TREATMENT Project: Location:

……………………………… ………………………………

#

Risk

Date: Preferred Option

Treatment Option

Cost / Benefit Analysis (Accept / Reject)

Likelihood rating after treatment

Responsible Person

………………

Monitoring

Public Health and Safety Risks (chosen risks only)

5.

Groundwater contamination

 Place hazard material away from construction site  Proper refuelling method to be used

2.

Digging depth

Confirm depth using tools (e.g. measuring tape and ropes)

All

Accept

1

Operator; Foreman

3.

Exposed reinforcement

 Cover steel (capping)  Wearing PPE

All

Accept

2

Labours

7.

Heavy equipment accidents

 Safety Induction  Allocation of equipment

All

Accept

1

Labours; Safety Officer

14.

Unprotected excavated well

 Safety Induction  Place barriers

All

Accept

2

Safety Officer

Risk Management in Engineering | 49006

All

Accept

2

Safety Officer

bars

Page 25 of 26

 Regular checks to be carried out by safety officer on daily basis.  Keeping record of all hazard materials used on site.

Checking and gaining approval from top management.  Regular checks to be carried out by safety officer on daily basis.  Keeping records of all incidents.  Keeping records of all incidents.  Periodic safety workshops.

Regular checks to be carried out by safety officer on daily basis.

Risk Management Plan – 11584190

RISK TREATMENT Project: Location:

……………………………… ………………………………

#

Risk

Treatment Option

Date: Preferred Option

Cost / Benefit Analysis (Accept / Reject)

………………

Likelihood rating after treatment

Responsible Person

Monitoring

 Maintenance records.  Dust cleaning / air quality measure to be maintained.

Regular water test to be conducted / documented.

Public Health and Safety Risks (chosen risks only) 1.

Air quality

 Regular maintenance of machines  Water spray to control dust

11.

pH / Acidity

 Preliminary water tests  Relocation of the well

Risk Management in Engineering | 49006

All

Accept

3

Foreman; Labours

Preferred -

Accept

1

Project Engineer; Manager

Page 26 of 26