Within every new project, there are various elements of risk
which must be considered and managed. For our project, the risk assessment has been split into two areas, one which considers all of the health and safety aspects and one which considers risk involved with project, technical and commercial issues. The health and safety area of the risk assessment looks at potential risk surrounding both foreseeable use and foreseeable misuse. Using the scale from 1 to 5 for the severity of the consequence of each described risk, and a scale of Low, Medium and High for the likelihood, it is possible to rank the risks to produce a Prioritised Risk Assessment. Once this has been produced, mitigations for each of the risks can be introduced. We will now look at each risk described in more detail and explain more comprehensively what is meant by each risk and its mitigation. Deliberate breaking of maximum boundaries and limits, deals with the possibility of the user trying to exceed the capabilities of the machine. Attempting anything which will compromise the performance of the machine could result in machine failure and subsequently injury. The likelihood of such events occurring has been stated as medium and the consequence involving Moderate Injury. The mitigation as described for this risk is to display a comprehensive list of what not to do whilst using the machine and for this particular risk state that the machine should only be used within the stated boundaries. Incorrect use of the pull down bar is a risk associated with both accidental and deliberate misuse of the pull down bar. Using the pull down bar for any exercise other than those shown on instructional diagrams on the machine can lead to damage to the machine and also injury to the user. The likelihood of this risk occurring can be classed as medium and the consequence Minor Injury. This risk can be mitigated by displaying easy to understand instructional diagrams on the machine from which the user can determine the correct way to handle the pull down bar. Applying too much weight will result in injury is directly associated with deliberate misuse of the system by the user. If the user instructs the machine to deliver more weight than he/she is comfortable with then the result for the user will be injury. It is much more advisable for the user to begin their workout on a lower weight and then build the weight up in accordance with what they are capable of and feel comfortable with. The level of likelihood applied to this risk is medium and it falls into the Minor Injury category of the consequence scale. The mitigation suitable for this risk is within a comprehensive list of what to do displayed on the machine and should state that the user should not try to apply weight which exceeds what is suitable for them. Body parts coming into contact with moving parts is associated with the users deliberate misuse of the machine. The large moving parts are generally the pulleys connecting the pull down bar to the rest of the application system. Fingers or hands coming into contact with such moving parts can result in friction burns and other minor injuries. The likelihood of this risk occurring is medium and as stated, the consequence of it happening would result in Minor Injury. A list of what not to do when using the machine, which is visible to the user, would be an appropriate mitigation for this risk, and would state that all body parts should be kept away from exposed moving parts. Use of inappropriate exercises is a necessary risk to include in the health and safety risk assessment to cover foreseeable misuse of the system by the user. The machine has been designed to perform specific exercises and these will be demonstrated by instructional diagrams on the machine. Attempting to perform other exercises with the machine may result in damage to the machine itself and injury to the user. The likelihood of this risk is medium and the level of consequence which will result would be Minor Injury. The method of risk mitigation which can be applied for this risk involves instructional diagrams in place on the machine which will inform the user of which exercises are appropriate and how to perform them correctly. Incorrect exercise technique will result in injury is a risk included within the risk assessment as it is very common for users of weight training machines to employ bad technique. Often, poor technique which is repeated over a period of time can result in injury to the user. Of medium likelihood, the consequence of this risk falls into the category associated with Minor Injury. Instructional diagrams presented on the machine will enable users to be constantly reminded of what is the correct technique. Incorrect positioning of the seat is a risk which can be avoided by diagrams clearly displayed on the machine of how to correctly position the seat. In order to correctly perform the desired exercises the seat must be positioned correctly and therefore if it is not the user will perform substandard exercises and most likely experience some unnecessary discomfort too. The likelihood associated with this risk is medium and as explained the level of consequence resulting from this risk is Discomfort. Providing diagrams for the user to follow is a suitable mitigation for this risk, showing how to properly adjust and position the seat. Opening up/disassembly of the motor box is a risk of low likelihood but one which results in severe consequences. Within the core box is contained the motor and the brake, both of which are potential sources of electrical hazards if disturbed. As the core box is also connected to the mains this also presents dangers of electric shock if interfered with. The consequences of opening up/disassembly of the motor box could result in Severe Injury to the user. The mitigation to be applied to this risk involves displaying clear warning and hazards sign on the outside of the motor box visible to the user and instructions not to disassemble. Interference with the cable and pulley set up is a risk which will have severe consequences. The cable and pulley arrangement has been designed so that it works in perfect conjunction with the rest of the system and therefore should not be altered. The likelihood of interference is low. However, if it was to be interfered with, Severe Injury could result. The cable could become loose or detached which would have obvious disastrous repercussions for the user. Therefore, the user must be informed of the severity of such actions and it must be included in a list of what not to do which should be clearly displayed on the machine. Making unauthorised adjustments will have obvious effects on the performance and safety of the machine. Unauthorised adjustments could compromise the safety of the machine in many ways and to varying levels of severity. The maintenance of the machine is not the responsibility of the user but the manufacturers and therefore under no circumstances should the user tamper with the workings of the system. Although a low likelihood, the consequence of this risk could result in Severe Injury for the user. It will be made clear to the user that they should make no adjustments to the machine. This will also be clearly displayed on the machine itself. Deliberate destruction is a risk which must be considered but one which is of low likelihood. Deliberate destruction is an example of foreseeable misuse of the machine by the user and therefore must be accounted for. Deliberate destruction can involve anything from direct abuse of the machine itself to. The consequences of such actions can result in Severe Injury to the user if the machine is then used. It must be made clear to the user than any form of deliberate destruction of the machine will compromise the safety of the machine and subsequently result in injury. Use of the equipment out doors is a risk which covers the machine being moved and used outdoors. The machine is not designed to be waterproof or in fact windproof and therefore will not perform effectively if used in such conditions. Although the likelihood of these situations occurring is low, due to the consequence can result in Moderate Injury. The machine will not perform predictably in exposed conditions and therefore is a substantial risk. All users should be instructed that the machine should not be used outdoors. Inserting body parts into moving parts is a risk which is considered to be of low likelihood yet can result in Moderate Injury if the risk occurs. There are several moving parts within the machine all of which should be avoided when the machine is in use and under no circumstances should body parts, particular fingers, be deliberately inserted. It should be made very clear to the user that this is the case and that there is a high risk of injury if done so. Use of the equipment when suffering from injury is a risk which must be considered for all forms of exercise equipment. If somebody were to use the equipment when they had an existing injury, continuing to exercise could make the injury worse. The likelihood of this risk is low yet Moderate Injury can result. Risk mitigation involves instructing all users that they should consult their doctor before embarking upon any exercise regime, especially if already suffering from an existing injury. Body parts becoming caught in moving cable is a risk of low likelihood yet of fairly substantial consequence. This risk is largely associated with hands and fingers become tangled in the moving cable aspect of the system. It is evident that if this were to happen then injury would result and hence the injury associated with this risk is Moderate Injury. Risk mitigation involves stating on the machine what not to do list that all body parts should be kept well clear of all moving parts during operation. Liquids will cause damage if they come into contact with the system refers largely to the risk that is presented if liquids come into contact with the core box containing the motor which is connected to mains power supply. The likelihood of this risk occurring is low but the consequence is somewhat higher resulting in Moderate Injury. Within a comprehensive list of what not to whilst using the machine it will be included that no liquids should come into contact with any of the working parts of the machine. Use by those above or below the maximum and minimum percentiles is a risk associated with users who fall either above or below the height and weight maximum and minimum percentiles. The maximum and minimum figures will be displayed and anybody who uses the machine outside of these boundaries will be at risk of injury and potentially at risk of causing damage to the machine. The risk likelihood is low as there are only a ten percent of people who are not suitable to use the machine, yet the consequence can result in Moderate Injury. Risk mitigation involves using a not to do list which will be displayed on the machine as a method of reminding/informing users if they should not be using the machine. Body parts caught in the seat adjustor pin is largely concerned with fingers becoming trapped when using the seat adjustor pin to adjust the height of the seat. The design of the seat and the pin mean that the likelihood of body parts becoming trapped is low yet there is a consequence of Minor Injury if this does happen. Outlining and emphasising that extreme care should be taken when adjusting the seat height using the seat adjustor pin in the list of what not to do when using the machine will be the mitigation for this risk. Incorrect use of the seat is a risk of both low likelihood and low consequence. This risk involves the seat being used for purposes other than its primary function or in the way in which it was intended to be used for the purpose of the exercises to be performed. The consequence category that this falls into is Discomfort as no significant level of injury would result from incorrect use of the seat. The risk, however, can still be mitigated. Mitigation of the risk can be achieved by including instructional diagrams on the machine to allow the user to see the appropriate and correct way of using the seat. Clothing becoming caught/trapped in moving parts is a risk which would involve the users clothing coming into contact with, and then subsequently becoming trapped, in the moving parts of the machine. The chances of this happening are fairly low and the risk is therefore represented by a low likelihood. The consequence associated with the risk is one causing Discomfort as the effects of clothing becoming caught would be minimal. In order to mitigate this risk it should be outlined that clothing should be kept clear of all moving parts and more specifically that excessively loose clothing should not be worn when using the machine. Body parts inserted into core box fans is a risk considered to be of low likelihood. There are two cooling fans on either side of the core system box and if body parts, such as fingers, were inserted into these when they are stationary they could become stuck, and if they came into contact when the fan was moving then there is risk of slight injury. The consequence category which this risk falls into is that which covers Discomfort. In order to mitigate this risk it should be stated in the list of what not to do that body parts should be kept away from the fans. Prolonged pull down position could burn out motor is a risk which could occur as a direct result of user misuse. If the pull down bar is held in the down position for a prolonged period of time if will require a lot of output from the motor and therefore could result in the motor eventually burning out. The likelihood of this risk is low as it would have to be a fairly substantial amount of time for the motor to burn out, and the consequence is also classed as low falling into the category which would cause Discomfort. In order to mitigate this risk it could be included into the what not to do list that the user must not maintain the pull down position for any length of time and should instead return the bar to its original resting position immediately when the exercise is complete.
The area of risk concerned with project, technical and
commercial issues is an extremely important one and one within which there could be the most project threatening risks. The purpose of the three different categories within the overall Design and Commercial section of the risk assessment is so that each risk can be dealt with more easily and specifically. The risks are initially assessed by their likelihood and consequence using a scale of low, medium and high. Those with a combined result of high-high represent those risks most fatal for the project and ones which must be most urgently considered before proceeding. In contrast, those with a low-low outcome are the risks considered to be least significant and are not as highly regarded. Outside the scope of existing expertise is a risk of high importance due to the severe consequences which would result from it. This risk involves discovering areas of the project which require understanding and knowledge which is beyond that of the project members. This could be largely associated with the control aspect which involves a substantial amount of highly specific and precise knowledge. Due to the slightly unknown nature of this control element, the likelihood of such a risk occurring is medium and the consequence is high. Discovering such gaps in our knowledge would halt our progress and as such present severe repercussions in terms of time and budget constraints. In order to solve such a situation the area of the project in question could be either subcontracted to specialists or specialists could be employed into the project to assist. Core system unable to match conventional weight system performance is a factor of this system which has been thought about in detail from the start. The idea of this new modular system is to replace the need for block weight and provide an alternative and superior resistance method. If this however does not truly simulate the original experience then the system is flawed. The likelihood of this risk is medium and the consequence high. If the performance of the system fails to imitate the experience created by block weights then the resistance method would need to be reassessed and redesigned. Control system cannot accurately distinguish when to swap between brake and motor mode is a risk associated with the changeover between when the control system is actively engaging with the brake and the motor. The downward pull of the pull down bar is resisted by the motor and on the upward movement the resistance is provided by the brake. If the control system does not swap between these two efficiently then the motion will not be fluid and will be awkward for the user to deal with. The likelihood of this risk occurring is medium and the level of consequence which it will result in is high. The simplest mitigation for this risk would be to remove the brake system and redesign the control system to run both the upward and downward motions of the motor. Motor does not provide required power is associated with the risk involved if the motor we have chosen for our system fails to provide enough power to support the resistance method. Our calculations have led us to choose a 24V motor but if our calculations prove inaccurate and this voltage is insufficient then the system will fail. The likelihood of this happening is low, we trust all our calculations to be correct and therefore there is no foreseeable reason that the motor will not provide sufficient power. However, the consequence which would result if this risk were to materialise would be high. The mitigation for this risk would simply be that a larger motor would have to be sourced. Completed application system does not meet strength requirements is a risk which may also be considered as a safety hazard. If the completed system is in fact not strong enough to support its own weight and that of the users then there are large risks involved. Although the likelihood of the system doing anything other than excelling the strength requirements if low, the consequences if it does not are high. Reinforcements would be required in order to ensure that the strength of the machine is sufficient. Application system design unstable is a risk of low likelihood but of high consequence. The system could prove to be unstable once manufactured due to either uneven weight distribution or insufficient material properties associated with strength. If the machine was deemed unstable then it would be unsuitable for use due to the safety risks which it would present. This risk could be mitigated by adding reinforcements to the structure in the form or additional struts and base panels to manage the weight distribution more evenly. Cannot meet cost target is a risk involved with all new projects. The tight budget which we were allowed for our project has required careful material and component selection. The tight budget means that the likelihood of us failing to meet our cost target is high, however, the consequences less severe. Although ideally we would like to meet our cost target, the consequence of not doing so has been rated as medium as there are some simple steps which could be taken to mitigate the risk. The supply chain could be reviewed and out sourced materials and component reassessed to make it more lean. Issues at Critical Design Review hold back project is a risk of very high likelihood. The Critical Design Review is the last formal stage before the project can go to manufacture and therefore it is highly likely that problems will arise. If the Critical Design Review takes place immediately before manufacture is planned to begin then if issues do occur then progress will be halted. The consequence of this happening is medium. It is not disastrous for the project but will require modifications and adjustments to be made quickly in order to then successfully pass a second Critical Design Review and begin manufacture. This risk can be mitigated by ensuring that the review takes places well in advance of when manufacture is planned to start in order to allow time for error and room for manoeuvre. Competition introduces similar technology is a risk of both medium likelihood and medium consequence. The risk of a competitor in the market compromising the success of our product by releasing their own similar model must be considered. There is nothing which can be done to prevent such an event occurring but if they were to sell their own technology for a lesser price then it would have to be assessed whether we could lower our own selling price in order to remain competitive. A full report would have to be included within the project evaluation. Manufacture takes longer than predicted is a fairly likely prospect, of medium likelihood and is a risk which would have medium scale consequences. It can be difficult to accurately estimate how long the manufacture of each part can take and with so many parts to be manufactured within our project there is a fairly large margin for error. To ensure that delays in manufacture do not have severe knock on effects the time allotted for manufacture for account for such delays i.e. allow more time than is initially predicted. Sourcing parts from overseas causes delays is something which can be heavily accounted for and expected when choosing to source parts from outside of the UK. There is a moderate probability that there will be a delay due to the distances travelled and as such a medium likelihood of the risk occurring has been stated. The result of such a risk ranks at medium in terms of severity as delays in the arrival in parts can stop the whole project from remaining on track in terms of time. In order to prevent this from happening it should be ensured that all parts are ordered well in advance to allow time for disruption. Parts out of stock or delay in delivery is a risk of medium likelihood and of medium consequence in terms of severity. Suppliers may temporarily be out of stock and this will result in a delay in receiving the item according to when they are able to stock it again. In order to prevent this becoming an issue, all orders must be placed with suppliers well in advance of when they are required for use in manufacture and assembly. Product not well received by consumers is a risk which threatens the overall success of the project. If the benefits of the system are not fully understood by the consumer and they do not realise the advantages of our new resistance method then this will have obvious detrimental effects on our products success resulting in medium level consequences. This risk occurring would be a result of insufficient marketing and therefore in order to mitigate it both the methods of marketing and the way in which the product is presented would need to be improved. Market proves too small is a risk associated with the size of the market which we are entering into and this market not being big enough to sell enough of our own product. The main issue here is that cost would not be able to be recovered. As a result of our prior market research the likelihood of this occurring is low however the consequence is medium. In order to mitigate this risk if it were to occur, the possibility of extending our product into the market of home users could be explored. System not user friendly is a risk of only low likelihood. This is a risk which must be considered yet which is unlikely to materialise due to our research and concentrated efforts into the user friendly nature of the machine. If the system does however not prove to be user friendly i.e. is not easily understood by the user, then this contradicts one of our largest selling points and therefore has medium level severity consequences. If this is this case then the whole interface of the machine would need to be redesigned according to further consumer research in order to improve the interactivity and user friendliness of the machine. In response to our product, competitors reduce their own selling price is a risk which could arise as we enter a market where there are similar technologies available. If, upon entering the market, other companies feel threatened by our product, then they may reduce the selling price of their own product in order to maintain business. The likelihood of this risk occurring is relatively low but due to the actions we would need to take in order to mitigate it, the level of consequences which would result is medium. We would need to increase the marketing of our own product and as a secondary measure also consider the possibility of reducing the selling cost of own product in order to remain competitive. System fails to cater for 5th to 95th percentile is a risk which would require a system redesign if it was to occur. Although the likelihood of this risk is low, the medium level consequences are a result of the redesign process which the risk mitigation would entail. Not catering for those between the stated percentiles means that for example, even a user with an arm reach between those which the machine is designed for, is unable to exercise efficiently on the machine. Non-linear relationship between linear actuator position and brake torque is a risk associated with how easy it is to implement the control system. The risk would involve the system not providing us with as accurate a braking force as we require, we would be unable to quantify the accuracy of the force. The likelihood of this risk occurring is medium but the consequence is low. In order to mitigate this risk a more complex feedback loop and more complex algorithm would have to be implemented. Material supplier closes down is a risk of both low likelihood and low consequence. If a material supplier closes down then for whichever of the components we sourced from them we would need to find a new supplier. Product overweight is a risk which must be taken into high consideration for several reasons. If the system is over the anticipated weight then this will have repercussions as far as both transportation and assembly are concerned. Also, if the system is too heavy in certain areas then the support structure of the whole machine may be compromised. The likelihood of this risk occurring is low, as are the consequences which would result. In order to mitigate this risk materials would need to be changed and the design could also be altered in order to incorporate weight saving measures.
All of the elements of both sections of this risk assessment can
be easily displayed in table format as shown below. Each stage of the assessment is included; the Initial Risk Assessment, the Prioritised Risk Assessment and the Risk Mitigation.
The Patriarchial Idea of God Author(s) : Herbert Gordon May Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 60, No. 2 (Jun., 1941), Pp. 113-128 Published By: Stable URL: Accessed: 19/06/2014 16:43