How does research evidence change the advice you give? We have seen pretty much all that Havinga et al has noted in the study case, but in real time. No set timelines, no baseline period just work work as usual. Their study, I would say, is pretty much spot on. But it is our work force that have led the desire to change. They told us that our version of Take 5 was pointless, that it had been simplified to the point of it being meaningless, and that they wanted a system that actually provided the opportunity to think about the work that was about to happen.
Our response? Go for it, what do you want?
This very much an in progress project but what we have so far is that there will be 3 groups, Low, Medium and High risk tasks - so far so good!
Low risk (literally nothing could foreseeably could cause harm) - no need to formally assess
Medium - tasks that would cause concern, but less so with experience and frequency
High - tasks that contain one or more of 5 critical risks - these are to be assessed with a JSA style analysis.
The finer details are yet to be hammered out, however, as the H&S manager, I am having very little to do with the project, it is led and run by our engineers, and that fact alone shows me that our culture is sufficiently mature to understand the value of considering the inherent risks within our industry beyond 'I need to cover my ass'.
As I said, a project very much in its infancy, however it'll be fascinating to see what we come up with.