Risk Assessment of Two-Storey Abu-Dhabi Language Center - Example

RISK ASSESSMENT Insert Name 1.0 Scope of Study 1.1 Description of Place This risk assessment is conducted on the two-storey Abu-Dhabi Language Center located in Abu Dhabi; the capital city for United Arab Emirates. The center is an English language center where students learn the English language and has eight classrooms. Learning in the center takes two shifts of four hours each from 9am to 1pm and from 3pm to 7pm. During these shifts, the language center absorbs 120 students with 15 students in each classroom. The center’s staff comprises of the head manager, two reception staff, 3 cleaning staff, 2 security guards and 16 teachers. The teachers are divided equally between the two shifts with 8 teachers taking the morning session and the rest in the evening session. Students attending the center are within the 18-40 years age bracket whereby the institution focus on enhancing gender balances. The administrative offices are placed in the building’s ground floor that includes the manager’s office, two computer laboratories, lecture theatres, management office and the teacher’s office. These offices are widely spread within the floor hence providing adequate space for undertaking their duties within the center. On the first floor, the center houses eight classrooms and a coffee shop where the students relax during their short breaks. Lastly, the center’s second floor has a storage facility and kitchen where the center stores its learning material as well as provides a dining space for the students. The building’s upper floors are served by stairs and two elevators that are located beside the stairs. This setting enables movement up and down the building without major hold-ups especially during periods of power failures. The stairways are 2meters wide and 100ft long in all the floors of the building. On the other hand, the elevators carry a maximum of thirteen people and they serve all the floors. Notably, the main entrance to the center serves as the main exit although there are two more exits within the center that are also in use. However, there are additional four exits that are set aside for use during emergencies. These exits are located within the first and second floors and are connected to adjustable stairways on the outside of the building. Lastly, the building is fitted with alarms all over that can be triggered by switches that are strategically placed within the building. Huge signs indicating the location of the alarm switches are placed on top of the switches to enhance their accessibility during times of emergencies. 1.2 Methods Used Information used for risk assessment has been gathered through visual surveys whereby the investigator physically assesses the interior and exterior of the building. As an investigator, he is equipped with a checklist that guides him through the risk assessment process. This method is preferred by the investigator because he is able to assess the risk physically and make conclusions immediately. The investigator is also able to identify underlying trends that result into the discovery of interrelated hazards. Other methods such as secondary research are not preferable since the initial research material might have been omitted hence resulting into biased reports. 1.3 Plan of Work The researcher begins with the identification of the building to be assessed that is the learning center. After the identification, the researcher embarks on the risk assessment process that is procedural as guided by the risk assessment checklist. Data gathering is very crucial as it determines the validity of the conclusions and recommendations drawn by the researcher. Visual survey is to be used as the main data gathering tool due to its varied benefits compared to other data collection methods. After gathering data, the researcher will eventually analyze the gathered information and prepare a report that highlights the various hazards within the building. 1.4 Legal Disclaimers This report is intended to highlight the various imminent risks and hazards present within the learning center and the author is not liable for any action whatsoever its nature that is based on this report. The risk assessor is not legally obliged to control the use of information contained in the report by the public. Finally, information contained in this report should not be replicated in any form whatsoever without the author’s permission that would otherwise result into legal action. 2.0 Hazards 2.1Preliminary Hazard Analysis comments criticality rank frequency contingencies safeguards warning devices consequences possible accident trigger(s) location of hazard source of hazard reference number Two holes should be closed The center’s floor should be renovated especially along the corridors to ensure the safety of the occupants Due to the high criticality of the hazard, the center’s management should ensure that the drainage and electrical systems are functioning properly Exits points within a building are important especially during emergencies and should be wide enough to handle the occupants at a go. In the event of flooding, the open sockets pose an electrocution danger to the occupants of the building and should therefore be sealed. Additionally, these sockets should be regularly maintained to ensure that loose electrical wires do not protrude over the socket posing a great danger Since the kitchen and dining facilities are located in the top most floor, this contingency is important as it will limit the space available for resting and relaxing Low High High Moderate High High Low Moderate Low Medium Low Low Portable fire extinguisher and sound fire alarm Covering the surface with rough material such as carpets or less slippery tiles Reliable drainage systems within the building Frequent use of the multiple exits within the building Revaluation on the need of additional socket holes within the classrooms to ensure that minimum sockets are available for use by the students and teachers Installation of strong rail guards to prevent the identified hazard Installation of sprinklers within the building Placement of handles on the walls to provide supports for falling individuals Regular maintenance of the water pipes Availability of multiple exits and entry points within the building Installation of temporary blockers to the socket holes that can be removed if need be Restricting people from accessing the area close to the edges of the balcony Smoke detectors Large signs clearly stating the imminent danger Signs indicating that the area is flooded Danger alert signs Warning signs Restrict people from escaping Limit people’s movement within the building especially students and teachers Deaths and body injuries Physical injuries and deaths Multiple deaths Death and bodily harm Fire and explosion Falling and causing bodily harm Electrocution Death and bodily harm Electrocution Falling over Allowed smoke and flame to pass to the other room Slipping or tripping over an object Burst water pipes within the building Narrow doors that provide exits to the various building offices Contact with water during the cleaning exercise Low rails meant to prevent individuals from falling over the balcony At workplace All pathways and corridors in the building Within the building Within the building In the classrooms The building’s balcony Two holes on the wall Slippery and uneven floor surface Accumulated water Congestion within the exit and entry points Unsealed electrical sockets Open balcony with low-rails around the edges 1 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. During the preliminary review phase, the risk assessor ought to prepare benchmarks that they use to rank the center’s precautionary measures to hazards. Benchmarks provide a scale that sums up the various rankings on the assessor’s hazard checklist thus enabling them to draw conclusions and make recommendations (Damodaran 2008, p41). Where additional information is required, the assessor has the option of engaging several occupants of the building in interviews in order to evaluate their views on the building’s safety. However, the assessor observes the various building policies especially the communication policy that does not allow the occupants to provide information without the permission of the center’s director. 2.3 Risk Ranking This concept seeks to arrange noted hazards in order of their potential occurrence or increase the chances of an undesirable event occurring. Eventually, risks are assigned a specific score depending on their impact hence facilitating the computation of the total hazard. Hazards Frequency Severity Safeguards 1. Two dangers opening used to extend wires and duct to other rooms Probable Significant Contained 2 Slippery and uneven floor surfaces Occasional Serious Secure 3 Accumulation of surface water Periodic Catastrophic Contained 4 congestion during emergencies sporadic significant minimal 5 Unsealed electrical sockets Regular Structural Secure 6 Falling over the balcony Rare event Peripheral Strategic 7 Fire within the building Never yet observed Critical Strategic 8 Electrocution Statistic exist Serious Compensative 9 Breach of building security Sporadic Significant Secure 10 Fault/failure of air conditioning system in the center Regular Serious Minimal Ranking is based on frequency of the hazard since a recurring hazard could cause much damage that a sporadic hazards. Scores for the listed hazards are indicated below: Hazard Score 1. Two dangers opening used to extend wires and duct to other rooms 6 2 Slippery and uneven floor surfaces 4 3 Accumulation of surface water 7 4 congestion during emergencies 5 5 Unsealed electrical sockets 8 6 Falling over the balcony 2 7 Fire within the building 1 8 Electrocution 3 9 Breach of building security 5 10 Fault/failure of air conditioning system in the center 8 From this analysis, the hazards can be ranked as follows starting with the most severe to the least severe: Hazard Ranking Fault/failure of air conditioning system in the center 8 Unsealed electrical sockets 8 Accumulation of surface water 7 Two dangers opening used to extend wires and duct to other rooms 6 Breach of building security 5 congestion during emergencies 5 Slippery and uneven floor surfaces 4 Electrocution 3 Falling over the balcony 2 Fire within the building 1 3.0 Fault and Event Trees Garlick (2007, p29) states that fault trees are risk assessment instruments that enable risk assessors break down a hazard into its various contributing factors. These instruments are based on the logic that hazards arise from the occurrence of minor events that are interrelated. Through the use of the fault trees, the risk assessor is able to visualize and relate the various factors and their contribution to the occurrence of a disaster. Graphical representation of the fault trees enables the assessor to identify underlying factors that are interrelated and have the probability of interacting and causing great danger within and around the learning institution. It can therefore be stated that fault trees assist in the calculation of the probability on the occurrence of an unlikely event. Secondly, the fault trees are used in the identification of the critical stages that result into the occurrence of a disaster. This is based on the fact that disasters occur due to the development of a number of contributing factors. Finally, the fault trees enable the risk assessor to measure the effects of any particular design changes within the building (Garlick 2007, p78). The assessor is able to evaluate the impact of such structural changes and compare their effects in mitigating the effects of the risk under assessment. All in all, fault trees analysis can be considered as an analysis, system evaluation and decision making tool. Towards developing the fault trees, the risk assessor ought to identify the top event and work downwards by identifying the various factors and eventually the source(s) of the event. For instance; Fig 1: Example of a fault tree indicating the various factors that result into a fire disaster On the other hand, event trees are graphical representations of all events that occur within a system that enhance the assessor’s understanding of the undesirable event. This assessment instrument plays a great role in risk management as it enables the management to analyze multiple events that would result into the occurrence of an undesirable event. Unlike fault trees, event trees are not based on probabilities of the unfortunate event but rather it focuses on the systematic events that are likely to result into a disaster (Great Britain 2007, p69). At the end of the event tree diagrams, the assessor indicates the success and failures rates to categorically describe the events that are most likely to result into the undesirable event. In developing the event trees, the risk assessor is required to identify the various hazards present within the building and their sources. With this information, the assessor is able to develop the event trees pertaining to a particular disaster. For instance; Success Failure Failure Success Failure Success Fig. 2; Event tree depicting various events that result into a fire disaster Event trees seek to rank various events to their likelihood of causing a fire disaster by analyzing their success and failure rates. Eventually, this assists the risk assessor in identifying the most probable source of a disaster and advice the management accordingly. 3.1 Reliability Study and Markov Modeling The Markov approach is embedded on the Markov chains that indicate the progression of events over a period of time. For the chain to develop, one hazard factor has to develop hence impacting on another factor that progresses into another state hence increasing the probability of an accident happening. From the Markov chain, it is possible to reverse the events hence making it possible to return to earlier states in the chain (Ching & Ng 2006, p67). Repair or correction in a certain state results into a return into the previous stage and a breakdown in the present state results into development into the next stage. For instance, assume a microwave in the center’s kitchen works reliably at time t=0. Within three months, the microwave can either be fully functional (R) or faulty (F) hence generating a number of possibilities. Firstly, an assumption that the electrical appliance has a failure rate of 25 per cent in every three months and a 50 per cent chance of being repaired successfully in the event it is broken down is taken into consideration. Hence; 0.25 0.75 R 0.5 0.5 R F From this scenario, probability rates for the various appliance reliability’s and failures can be calculated. R P=.042 0.75 R 0.25 F P = 0.14 0.75 R R P = 0.09 0.75 0.5 0.25 F 0.5 F P= 0.09 0.5 R P = 0.09 R 0.25 0.25 F P= 0.03 0.5 0. F 0.5 R = 0.09 R 0.75 0.5 F = 0.09 Fig 3: Probability tree diagram for a fire disaster From the above diagram, the probability of a fire disaster resulting from a faulty microwave is provided at the left-most hand side of the diagram. With these calculations, the assessor and risk manager are able to make a decision on the most optimal time to replace the microwave to avert a fire disaster. It should however be noted that, the use of the probability tree in the Markov modeling process is limited to solving less complex risk situations (Ching & Ng 2006, p117). Other representations of the Markov modeling chain include matrix and stochastic representations that widely use numbers and formulae to solve the probabilities. System’s Reliability Study Systems comprise of various sub-systems that are interdependent and interactive to enhance the functioning of the entire system. These sub-systems can be represented graphically to identify the flow of procedures within the system. Apparently, risk assessment seeks to establish the connection between independent events that have the capability to result into the occurrence of an undesirable event (Frenkel, Hommel, Dufey & Rudolf 2005, p165). The systems reliability model seeks to breakdown the entire system into its various components to enhance risk assessment procedures. Let’s take into consideration the various events that result into a fire disaster. Firstly, flammable material and a source of ignition have to be present. With the fire ignited, smoke accumulates within the building that triggers off the smoke detectors connected to the fire alarm. This in turn triggers the sprinkler system within the building that seeks to put out the fire before it spreads to other parts of the building. These events can be presented graphically as; This can be represented as; Fig 4: The summed up system reliability is depicted by the structure function below; Rs = 1-(1-R12) (1-R34) (1-R56) = 1 – (1-R1R2) (1-R3R4) (1-R5R6) The reliability of the system is provided by identifying the probabilities of the six components reliability rates. By factoring these reliabilities into the function above, the risk assessor is able to determine the reliability of the entire fire system. While conducting the reliability study, the identification of cut sets is important as it highlights component parts whose failure result into the collapse of the entire system (Frenkel, Hommel, Dufey & Rudolf 2005, p192). Minimal cut sets are cut sets that do not cause system failure as a result of the collapse in one or more of its system components. Business Continuity Plan In the event of the occurrence of an undesirable event, the centre ought to ensure that it remains operational to protect its social and educational interests. For the center’s administration to ensure sustainable practices, the management ought to develop a business continuity plan that will guide the center’s re-building processes. Towards developing the BCP, the management should firstly identify the main operational areas within the centre (Fulmer 2005, p64). This includes a suitable learning environment with qualified tutors with wide knowledge of the English language. Tuition fees paid by students enable the management meet the normal operational costs whereas the qualified tutors attract both the local and foreign students. Secondly, the center’s revenues are required to at least meet the operational costs incurred in the provision of the educational services. Upon the occurrence of an unfavorable event, the center’s management has to request for additional funding and this requires utilizing funds in the reserve accounts. Towards the recovery of the center’s operations, the breaking point is identified by the restoration of the normal activities prior to the occurrence of the undesirable event. Fulmer (2005, p71) notes that the breaking point is only identifiable for quantifiable elements such as student enrolment and available sitting capacity for students. Public opinion about the center’s safety cannot be measured and therefore difficulty in establishing the breaking point. Thirdly, the determination of various alternatives available to the center’s management as it seeks to restore its previous operational capacity. These alternatives should be ranked depending on their resource utilization to ensure that the centre does not incur additional costs in the recovery process. For instance, the center’s management may choose to close down the centre for a while to facilitate the building’s reconstruction. Alternatively, the centre can lease other structural property from where they can conduct their operations. Fourthly, the management proceeds with the selection of the appropriate alternatives for their implementation. Lastly, the BCP should be tested and evaluated to ensure its applicability in the normal operations of the centre. Its various impacts should be assessed by the center’s community that includes students, staff and management (Fulmer 2005, p74). The center’s impact assessment aims at highlighting the continuity of the center’s operations after the occurrence of an undesirable event. Hazards can impact on the center’s operational areas hence impacting negatively on the internal processes. Internal properties include furniture, equipment and buildings among others whereas external properties include goodwill. Nature of Focal Company Responsibilities Legal Economic Ethical Voluntary Owners X X X Students X X X Employees X X X Community Interest Groups X X X X Public Citizens X X Fig. 5 Stakeholder Moral Responsibility Matrix Benefits Costs Owners Increased student enrolment hence increased revenues Increased operational costs Students High standards of learning High tuition fees Employees Motivated performance and working towards the achievement of the center’s objectives Increased training and development costs. Working beyond the normal working hours Community Interest Groups Increased community involvement and development hence Increased budgetary allocation to social improvement programs Public Citizens Cooperation with the institution in the pursuit of its objectives Increased operational costs Fig 6: Cost Benefit Analysis for the stakeholder groups Supply Chain Assessment The center’s main suppliers are students willing to learn the English dialect and therefore its supply would be affected in the occurrence of an undesirable event. Incident Response Plan Alarms are the main criteria in the declaration of whatever type of incident whereby manual alarm triggers are installed within the building. After raising alarm on an incident, the center’s security teams are required to confirm the incident by responding to the alarm immediately. With confirmation, evacuation should begin immediately and the relevant legal authorities notified on the incident. Communication to the center’s management should also be done promptly to ensure adherence to the response plan. The center’s exterior security team should halt all movements in and out of the premises whereas the internal team should seek to assemble the evacuated occupants at a central point to facilitate a head count exercise. Groups Authority Center’s Management The center’s administration should ensure that the external stakeholders are notified of the incident and select a spokesperson who will handle the press and the external community. The spokesperson is mandated to communicate to the public regularly on the incident’s development and clearly state the measures being taken by the administration Local Authorities The local authorities should conduct an investigation into the occurrence of the incident and provide possible sources of the incident. They should prepare a report that will later be released to the public following approval by the center’s management Security Teams The security teams are to conduct evacuation exercises upon notification of the incident within the centre. The teams are also required to minimize movements in and out of the building to facilitate accountability and apprehension. Other occupants Students, employees and visitors are required to cooperate with the security teams in facilitating the evacuation process and assist them when asked upon. This cooperation results into the preservation of lives and protection of property. Insurance The centre requires insurance cover over multiple accidents that can occur within the building’s compound. Firstly, the population within the centre at any given time is large enough and vulnerable to the occurrence of an undesirable event. Secondly, the hazards identified within the building are interconnected hence creating a cause-effect chain. Lastly, the risks identified within the building are quantifiable and can be estimated in monetary terms (Vaughan & Vaughan 2007, p45). Among the types of insurance covers available to the centre are property and liability insurance as well as social insurance for the center’s employees. Insurance schemes are important as they provide a sense of financial security through loss prevention. It also acts as a funding source for financial investments that increases the center’s capacity to achieve its objectives. The insurance concept is pegged on four major principles namely indemnity, insurance interest, subrogation and utmost good faith. These four principles ensure that the claimant is restored to same position prior to the occurrence of the incident. Utility The application of utility is evident when faced with multiple choices that constitute decision analysis. Present decisions are surrounded by an uncertain environment whereby an individual relies on past data and predictions. For instance, in deciding the cause of a fire accident due to a faulty machine, the assessor ought to consider previous fires that have been caused by faulty machines, say 90 per cent. Losses caused by faulty electrical machines have a loss estimate of £10,000 or at least £2,000 whereas the replacement of the machines costs £500. When this information is placed on a decision tree; 10,000 0.9 10,000 0.1 2,000 1.0 500 Fig 6 From this scenario, the assessor is able to compute the expected monetary value by; 0.9*10,000 + 0.1*2000 = £9,200 1.0*500 = £500 From the above, it can be noted that the replacement of the faulty machine will result into minimum losses compared to the continued use of the machine. The basic rule is the expected monetary value should be equal to the probability weighted average. However, at these probabilities, the assessor’s decision is based on the most favorable outcome and does not experience utility. Utility lies present whereby the assessor is indifferent on what option to choose where the probability is equal to utility. When utilities are plotted on a graph, four types of curves are generated that indicate the risk behavior of the center’s risk management team. The four are risk aversion, risk-taking, risk neutral and risk transitory. Conclusion Risk assessments are procedural in nature whereby the process commences with the identification of undesirable events that are broken down to their component factors. In most cases, these factors are interdependent and interact on different scales to result into the occurrence of an undesirable event. The risk assessor focuses on the component parts as they are the inputs to their study of the imminent risks present within the centre. Towards the assessment of these factors, the assessor utilizes several instruments such as the fault and event trees that are developed upon the probability concept. This concept assigns a percentage to the occurrence of an event owing to a certain factor. The product of these percentages is then computed to identify the likelihood of the occurrence of the undesirable event. Recommendations Due to its high risk casualty, the centre should develop a risk management plan that outlines the various security policies to be observed during the occurrence of an undesirable event. Additionally, the risk management plan should include a business continuity plan that seeks to mitigate the impact of an undesirable incident on the center’s operations. Risk assessments should also be conducted after three months to ensure the safety of the building’s occupants. References Ching, WK & Ng, MK 2006, Markov Chains: Models, Algorithms & Applications, Dresden: Birkhauser Pub. Damodaran, A 2008, Strategic Risk Taking: A Framework for Risk Mgmt, Denver: Wharton Sch. Pub. Frenkel, M, Hommel, U, Dufey, G & Rudolf, M 2005, Risk Mgmt: Challenge & Opportunity, Washington: Springer. Fulmer, KL 2005, Business Continuity Planning: A Step-by-Step Guide 3rd Ed, Chicago: Rothstein Assoc. Inc. Garlick, A 2007, Estimating Risk: A Mgmt Approach, Boston: Gower Pub. Ltd. Great Britain 2007, Mgmt of Risk: Guidance for Practitioners, Oxford: Office of Govt. Commerce. Vaughan, EJ & Vaughan, TM 2007, Fundamentals of Risk & Insurance, California: John Wiley & Sons. Read More