Critical Analysis of a Risk Management System - Coursework Example

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF A BLASTING RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM By Table of contents Table of contents 2 Introduction3 Scope of blasting and its effects 4 Improvement opportunity and background 5 Recommendations 6 Risk assessment 7 Responsibility (Accountability), and Authority 7 Competency/ Training requirements 7 Implementation planning 8 Auditing requirements 8 Reporting/ recording Requirements 8 Change management 9 Conclusion 9 Bibliography 10 Appendix 12 Introduction In definition, a risk management system refers to the application of techniques or measures to identify the total potential financial loss or gain that a company or organization is exposed to when sudden events or changes occur randomly (Rouse 2010, n.p.). These sudden events or changes are collectively defined as risks, and will usually have uncertain expected outcomes and effects on the organization. In seeking to protect the organization from negative effects arising from risks, organizations usually put into place some risk management systems. Risk management systems are important to organizations in that they make them aware of what certain risks are capable of doing to them, and by identifying such, give them the advantage of being ready for them in case they materialize. Concisely, risk management systems are meant to identify potential risks, and create on standby mitigation measures to counter the risks if by any chance they emerge (Canavan & Scott 2012, p. 1). In a mining context, risk management systems are constructed in adherence to specific risks associated with it, and these include human, environmental, organizational, and economic risks. The text in this study will conduct an analysis on the nature of a blasting risk management system as featured in a mining industry and thereafter give recommendations or strategies that can be applied in bettering its effectiveness. The following is a report condensed from the visitation to a mining site which uses blasting processes to break down rocks before excavating them. In the blasting processes, accidents usually occur owing to the nature of the materials and techniques applied in the breaking down of rocks. The risks are posed by flying rocks, resulting reactions from explosives, unauthorized access to explosives to mention but a few. It is in the light of this that the report highlights the Minerals Industry Risk Management model of achieving safe working conditions and processes. Scope of blasting and its effects Generally, the blasting process uses high-power explosives which are planted in the rocks to be broken down then the engineers conducting the process take cover at safe distances. The explosives are then detonated and this results in massive explosions which split the mother rocks into smaller bits which are then easier to manipulate (Phifer & Hem 2012, n.p.). The first risk posed by the blasting process is injuries that may arise from unauthorized persons accessing the blast areas who might be standing on rocks intended to be blasted or get hurt from flying rocks. Closely related to this risk is the danger posed by unauthorized access to the explosives by persons who might misuse them, or get hurt while trying to use them themselves (Revey 2005, p.5). The third risk posed by the blasting is that accidents are likely to emerge if the personnel conducting the blasting are not well-trained, or they are generally incompetent in the practice (Nelson & Scheer 1924, p.87). Fourth and of great importance is the blasting process itself. In the event that it is not laid out properly, it may be a danger in that the explosives might prematurely detonate and result in serious harm to the miners. The fifth danger lies in the explosives in that if by any case they perform inconsistently, they may harm the miners, or perform poorly. Six, the explosives might be of excess power that they send out vibrations over long distances such that they affect structures otherwise stated as being at safe vicinity to the mines (Ma, Hao, & Zhou 2000, p.1387). Finally, the most common risk of blasting is accidents resulting from flying rocks which may hit persons who happen to be near the blast areas. Having identified these risks, the MIRM model was evaluated and its potential mitigation measures evaluated. The model works by assessing the omissions, errors, and deficiencies which might otherwise contribute to the emergence of such. The measures revealed would safeguard against the occurrence of accidents, damages, or fatalities related to blasting. Improvement opportunity and background Following the above stated loopholes as recorded from the blasting site assessment, the need to apply the MIRM model in reducing the risks is evident. The model’s application relies on modification of some of the potential risk channels, making some stricter than they are, and inventing or doing away with others (Yang 2011, p.53). Concisely, the blasting site needs to be redesigned so that the chances of the emergence of any accidents or harmful incidents are reduced to zero, or a level close to that. These suggested countermeasures implemented should be able to address issues including the following; To counter the risks of having unauthorized persons such as civilians accessing the [dangerous] blast area, there needs to be an effective way of keeping them from doing so. Afterall, the mine is not meant for untrained persons. On the issue of unauthorized persons including staff accessing the explosives, more stringent means of keeping them away or controlling them are necessary. The critical issue of inadequately trained staff handling the explosives or general site activities should be minimized to its lowest. In addition to that, there should be certainty that all the involved persons are safe during the blasting procedures, that is; it should be conducted only after it is certain that everything is as it should be. Closely related to this issue is that the uncertainty of inconsistencies with the performance of the explosives should be completely erased (Smith n.d, p.5). Since the mine is located a few kilometres from residential areas, the entire included processes should be of magnitudes which do not exceed the recommended standards such that there emerges issues of residential structures being destroyed by blasting after-effects. Finally, the notorious risk of flying rocks after the explosions go off should be minimized using all possible means as suggested by Bajpayee, Verakis, & Lobb (n.d.). In short, the involved parties should work without the fear of getting hurt by flying rock pieces. Having assessed these gaps which should be restructured or improved, the MIRM model mediates as a necessary tool on what needs improvement so that the deficiencies, errors, and omissions which deduct to the site perfectness are addressed. From the assessment, an important and final section of the report was constructed. It uses the data collected and past occurrences to devise recommendations which would be effective in upgrading the overall nature of the site so that negative incidents and risks are kept at their lowest. Recommendations The recommendations given herein are simply the actual actions that should be taken towards improving the shortfalls discovered in the overall operating system at the blasting site. The individual measures have been thoroughly evaluated and for their effectiveness to be achieved, none should be isolated. The evaluations were made by using updated, applicable information, and deductions made out of past incidences. The newly suggested measures can be used in the future as control or “stand-by” measures to counter any threats of emerging complications (risks). The processes should not stop at that; rather, monitoring and constant tracking of the measures’ progress should be maintained lest they develop complications and fail themselves. Risk assessment There should be strict guiding policies to quantify between which risks can be termed acceptable or unacceptable in the blasting operations. In defining both of these, it should be mandatory that risk assessments exist. The assessments are important in that from them, countermeasures can be developed and effectively applied. In this situation, the best assessment methods for risk are one, Workplace Risk Assessment and Control, and two; Hazard and Operability Analysis (Sinha 2008, p.231). Responsibility (Accountability), and Authority Under this section, clarity and transparency should be paramount in classifying the responsibilities of every involved person. This includes amongst others having superiors who plan the way subordinates will conduct activities, and again, it be clear that policy violators are prone to punishment. The guidelines and policies are to be made by the topmost managers. On the specific issue of risk assessments, the corporate and regional managers will be mandated with the approvals of assessment policies and projects. The miners (operators) are expected to absorb all the training offered to them, and adhere to set rules. These will be observed by their supervisors. Authority is therefore determined by the amount of accountability that one has (World Bank 2011, p.45). Competency/ Training requirements Blasting is a complex profession and requires competency which is only acquired through achieving adequate experience, relevant know-how, and technical training. The idea of competency here is that since the systems used in this trade vary often or undergo some modifications, regular training is required if safety is to be maintained in the blasting site. In a nutshell, mistakes or accidents are less likely if one is sure about what they are doing (Roberts 2006, p.10). Implementation planning This is one of the most important recommendations in achieving effectiveness. This is because correct planning or layout provides a clear “path” for the monitoring and implementation of the blasting procedures. If the budgeting, production, scheduling, monitoring, assessments, and auditing are properly done, effectiveness, thus safety and innovation are achieved, and the risks are minimized further (Khan & Haddara 2003, p.561). Auditing requirements Any effective auditing will include five key aspects to it; first, the plans for the auditing should fit the recommended implementations. Second, the details of the audit should be altered as per the demands of the actual implementations. Three, the planning of the audit should de done in predefined time intervals, such that it is neither too short nor long. Four, only competent and able auditors should do the auditing; that is they should have the proper training and skills. Finally, there should be means of accessing feedback which is a key determinant of its delivery. This should be mandated to the management system related to it (Accorsi, Stocker & Muller 2003, p.2). Reporting/ recording Requirements This recommendation demands that there should be sufficient data capturing and storage which is made available for checking and reviewing anytime the need arises. This therefore calls for requirements such as adherence to a set standard of documentation (recording and storing data), there should exist means of judging the eligibility of the reporting/recording, the data should be safely stored, and lastly, all the data should be credible (real) and can be proven (Kouns & Minoli 2011, p.26). Change management This final recommendation circles around the modification of the operating procedures and conditions for the better. The areas which can be targeted for change include management of risk assessment, change requests, the monitoring process, and the implementation process as well. It should however be judged before any changes are inflicted than the intended changes are acceptable. In addition, corresponding actions should accompany the changes inflicted such as training staff when certain blasting procedures or equipment operation is updated (Heldman 2010, p.118). Conclusion This mining industry analysis has highlighted several aspects about the risks and countermeasures applicable in the blasting context. First of all, the mining industry has specific risks tied to it, created by the nature of materials and procedures used. In addition, there exist specific countermeasures of controlling risk after-effects for risks in three categories as highlighted by the risk assessment models. The analysis further elaborated the application of the MIRM model, and how its application works by decreasing the risk levels. From the analysis, it can be concluded that while several risk management systems exist, their effectiveness differs, and that some factors need to be changed or modified in achieving effectiveness. Bibliography Accorsi, R, Stocker, T & Muller, G 2003, “On the Exploitation of Process Mining for Security Audits: The Process Discovery Case”, 1-7. Bajpayee, T, Verakis, H & Lobb, T n.d., “An Analysis and Prevention of Flyrock Accidents in Surface Blasting Operations”,1-9. Heldman, K 2010, Project Manager’s Spotlight on Risk Management, John Wiley & Sons. Khan, F & Haddara, M 2003, “Risk-based Maintenance (RBM): a Quantitative Approach for Maintenance/ Inspection Scheduling and Planning”, Science Direct, (16) 6, 561-573. Kouns, J & Minoli, D 2011, Information Technology Risk Management in Enterprise Environments: A Review of Industry Practices and a Practical Guide to Risk Management Teams, John Wiley & Sons. Ma, G, Hao, H & Zhou, Y 2000, “Assesment of Structure Damage to Blasting Induced Ground Motions”, Science Direct, 1378-1389. Nelson, F & Scheer, C 1924, Safety education, [Chicago], Education Division, National Safety Council, [etc.]. Phifer, M & Hem, P 2012, “Blasting”, Technomine, available at http://technology.infomine.com/reviews/Blasting/welcome.asp?view=full [23rd May, 2014]. Revey, G 2005, “Evaluating and Managing Construction Blasting Risk,” Instantel, 1-7. Roberts, J 2006, “ Improving Mine Safety Technology and Training: Establishing U.S. Global Leadership” ,Mine Safety Technology and Training Commission,1-203. Rouse, M 2010, “Enterprise Risk Management (ERM)”, SearchCIO, available at http://searchcio.techtarget.com/definition/enterprise-risk-management [23rd May, 2014]. Sinha, S 2008, “Risk Management in Mines- The Six Sigma Way”, Coal Operators’ Conference, 231-246. Smith, R n.d., “Blast Management Plan”, Bhpbilliton, 1-33. World Bank, 2011, Strategic environmental assessment in policy and sector reform: conceptual model and operational guidance, Washington, DC, World Bank. Yang, B 2011, Regulatory Governance and Risk Management: Occupational Health and Safety in the Coal Mining Industry, Routledge. Appendix Read More