RISK: STRUCTURED REPORTING

Civil engineers require an appreciation of risk in specific project tasks and the extent to which identification and subsequent mitigation might affect both time and cost (Sections 2.2 and 3.1) in the completion of on-site activities.

Risk management must address the chances of an incident’s effect on project progress and requires measurement in terms of both consequence and likelihood; the civil engineer must be in a position to assess potential loss, injury or disadvantage, and provide an objective description of an incident’s probability or frequency.

A structured approach is needed to ensure that all potential risks and hazards are identified and quantified through the preparation of a plan

8 7 Total number of workers on-site 6 5 4 c b b d d e 3 a a a d d e 2 a a a d d e 1 a a a d d e wk1 wk2 wk3 wk4 wk5 wk6 Week

Figure 3.14 Revised week-by-week total number of workers on-site in a Gantt chart

format. Weeks wk1 wk2 wk3 wk4 wk5 wk6 Task a. Excavate rock 3 3 3 b. Assemble cage 1 1

c. Prepare sub-base 1 Float

d. Install gabion 4 4

e. Inspect/test/compliance check 4

Workers on-site 4 4 4 4 4 4

(summarised in Risk management in civil engineering) that develops responses and seeks to control such response options.

National and international standards organisations assist risk manage- ment by the provision of risk principles and guidelines.

riskmAnAgementincivilengineering

• Identify all potential risk incidents and their knock-on consequences. • Assess objectively the chances of the incident actually happening. • Develop structured risk treatment approaches and a risk mitigation

plan by stakeholder consultation to identify, contextualise, analyse, evaluate, treat and then monitor and review all tasks’ risks.

Addressing risk in a structured way is enhanced by a working knowledge of • Risk management—Principles and guidelines AS/NZS ISO 31000:

2009; ISO 31000:2009(E)

• Risk Management Guidelines Companion HB 4360:2004 to ISO Guide 73:2009

• Risk Register (Tables 10.1 and 10.2) and Risk Treatment Schedule Plan (Tables 10.3 and 10.4) of AS/NZS 4360:2004 and related updates A process to align risk categories with risk components might be sug- gested as a way to checklist and identify a project’s threats. A structured approach to categorising the components extends from the national/inter- nationals standards above.

Categories of risk include

• Organisational, governmental, commercial or financial funding approvals issues as well as risks related to development locations, zones and environments

• Risk arising from uncertainties related to project design approval, design technology, site and site conditions

• Risks related to the category of building and the operational process itself, which requires discussion in terms of respective risk compo- nents, where

Components of risk for the civil engineer centre on construction opera- tions on-site and might be argued to include

• The source of the threat such as the dangerous activity of materials’ placement

• Event or incident where something happens such as plant failure dur- ing placement

• Consequence in which damage is caused such as damage from improper placement

• Cause of what and why the incident occurred such as human error due to a lack of plant operation or old plant with nominal mainte- nance and upkeep

• When in the on-site work schedule and where on the actual site inci- dents happen

A measurement scale for the categorisation of a project’s respective tasks’ risks, in terms of a percentage calculated relative to the overall contract sum, provides one way to prioritise all identifiable threats; any task that carries a risk ‘calculated’ at 10% of the project sum is given a high priority of attention. In addition, high-risk construction activities and related safe work method statements (risk/hazard assessment statements) are a legal imperative before undertaking many on-site activities and certainly must acknowledge the risks incumbent in demolition work and structural steel erection.

An engineer’s (safe work12_{) method statement for particular on-site tasks}

seeks to address and mitigate risk at the early planning stage.

Risk repeat reporting (beyond task method statements) gives additional structured opportunities for monitoring, review and mitigation measures.

A likelihood/consequence risk matrix allows ease of reference (see Risk likelihood/consequence matrix).

Risk likelihood/consequence matrix 4 c b a a Risk 3 c b b a likelihood 2 a c b b 1 a a c c 1 2 3 4

Once again, perhaps it is pertinent to repeat Operational Health and Safety requirements:12

• Operational Health and Safety requires compliance with National Standard for Construction Work (Commerce 2011).

• All staff should undergo construction induction training in accord- ance with Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996 (Worksafe 2009); whereby clients (Protection 2007a), designers (Protection 2007b) and main contractors (Commerce 2007) are responsible for exercising the regulations as required.

Risk reporting takes the form of a project’s risk matrix summary and a compilation table of a project’s collective risk ranking.

By way of example (Figure 3.15), inclement weather conditions deemed within meteorological norms,13 _{might be classified as likely to happen but}

with nominal consequences.

On the other hand, material unavailability because of supply restrictions from a trusted long-term (international) supplier may be very unlikely, but have major consequences if it did occur.

It is worth noting that risk is increasingly being prioritised in terms of ‘consequence’ over ‘likelihood’; project risk mitigation must have addressed all extreme consequences prior to site commencement. The BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 is somewhat reflective of the trend/shift in risk weighting towards mitigation of consequence over likelihood.14

Tabulation of all the risks related to the project, alongside the task(s) that may be affected, with an indication of the risk ranking of importance if the incident did happen, as well as the cost in both time and money of the identified mitigating measure (cross-referenced to the method state- ment where appropriate) can be summarised in the example given in Table 3.3.

In this scenario, the potential for ‘heavy rain’ in the winter/monsoon season has already been included in the detailed estimate of foundation excavation with the mitigating measure of a suitable water pump on-site, included in the direct costs of the project. Material no-show on the other hand, has potentially a much more severe mitigating cost and would require major head office negations to identify, contact and confirm a new supply chain, somewhat beyond the remit of the civil engineer on-site (Table 3.3).

It is only by evaluating mitigating measures, that risk is truly addressed in timelines; be they bar charts or the alternative linear techniques described in Section 3.4. Heavy rain Likely to happen Unlikely to happen Minor

consequence Majorconsequence Material ‘stock’ unavailable

Ta bl e 3 .3 R is ks Risk Related tasks Risk r anking (% of the pr oject sum)

Mitigating cost, labour/plant/ mater

ial/saf ety (method statement cr oss-r ef) and monitor ing per iod 1 2 3 4 5 ≤0.1%, $ 0.1%–1%, $ 1%–5%, $ 5%–10%, $ > 10%, $ Hea vy rain Exca vate foundation X <1%, $5K W

ater pump availability (method statement task 1), monitor

: monthl y Material no-sho w Superstructur e steel installation X 25%, $250K Call/confirm ne w

supplier (method statement task 2), monitor

: as-is,

wher

3.4 ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULING TECHNIQUES