Risk Assessment Using Specified 11 Risk Assessment Methods - Essay Example

Risk Assessment Table of Contents Contents Contents 2 1. Introduction Risk assessment plays a very important role in preventing fire and explosion, suffering, and damage to property (Thomson, 2001, p.211; Berg, 2010, p.80). In UK, fire risk assessment is not limited to large plants or complexes but mandatory for employers regardless of the size and complexity of their premises. However, fire risk assessment requires a method of assessment that matches the complexity of the risk in order to be realistic and effective. The following is a risk assessment of Computer Technical School Building using 11 different methods of risk assessment. It also includes a discussion of advantages and disadvantages of each method and its applicability to a risk assessment with limited budget. 2. Layout of Building for Assessment The building selected for this assessment is a two-storey computer technical school building owned and operated by SB Incorporated. The work activities in this building mainly include teaching, janitorial, repair, and cooking while student-related activities include sports, laboratory, presentation, library reading, and other socialisation. There about 15 teaching staff, 6 managerial personnel, and 4 utility personnel. The maximum number of persons in this workplace is about 200 particularly during weekdays. Figure 1- Technical School Building- First Floor Figure 2- Technical School Building Second Floor 3. Risk Assessment Using Specified 11 Risk Assessment Methods 3.1 Ticklist (Source of format: Graham T. (2012)) Stage 1 No. Identification of Fire Hazards Findings 1 System for controlling combustible materials and flammable liquids None- there is no storage room and material handling and control in place 2 System operation Not applicable since there is no system in place 3 Safe storage for combustible materials and flammable liquids No safe storage- materials are stored near the loading docks 4 Heater guards and location of heater Heater with guards installed and away from potential sources of fuel (combustible materials) 5 Portable electrical equipment inspection and fuses There is no record of portable electrical equipment maintenance but fitted with appropriate fuses. 6 Electrical wiring inspection Wiring inspected every month by electrical services contractor 7 Extension leads and multi-point adapter Minimal use of extension leads and multi-point adapters. 8 Flexes location Flexes run in safe places away from potential damage 9 Furniture upholstery Furniture upholstery in good condition. No evidence of deterioration. 10 Rubbish and combustible waste materials The workplace is free of rubbish but with significant number of combustible waste materials (mostly paper). 11 Smoking area with adequate ashtray There is no officially designated smoking area but occupants use open area near parking lot 12 Measures against arson There is no clear policy or indication of such measures 13 Measures to prevent smoke and flames spread Walls are concrete and there are several fire rated doors along the corridor leading to different exit points Stage 2 No. Identification of People Who Could Be at Risk Findings 14 Sufficient number of exits and width for the number of occupants There about 11 possible exits with sufficient width for 250 occupants 15 Exits leading to place of safety All exits leading to place of safety. Some are leading to the parking lot and others to the main road. 16 Obstructions on escape routes and gangways There is no obstruction in both escape routes and gangway. 17 Tripping and Slipping Hazards in Escape Route Floors are made of non-slip tiles and there is no indication of any possible cause for tripping. 18 Steps and stairs All steps and stairs in good condition 19 Final exit Final exits are unlocked during office hours 20 Devices securing final exit Final exit can be open without a key 21 Internal Fire Doors Internal fire doors are adequately labelled and closed most of the time. 22 Self closers on Fire Doors Self-closers are working in all fire doors 23 Door opening direction All doors in escape routes open in the direction of the final exits 24 Signs in Escape Routes Exit signs along escape routes clear and adequate. 25 Lighting in Escape Routes Escape routes with emergency lighting 26 Evacuation plan for assisting disabled staff and visitors There is no formalised evacuation plan particularly for disabled staff. Stage 3 No. Elimination, Control, and Avoidance of Fire Hazards Findings 27 Procedures and Practices for Use of Combustible Materials and Processes that use and produce heat No formal procedures in place but staff are regularly being reminded of fire safety through meeting 28 Consideration of cost-effective measures in preventing arson There is no consideration provided but security is instructed to watch possible arson-related activities 29 Staff Training in terms of fire safety Staff not formally trained. Only few staff know how to operate fire extinguishers and fire alarm 30 Advice from insurer regarding fire safety Advice from insurer not yet solicited. Stage 4 No. Adequacy of Existing Fire Safety Procedures and Necessary Improvements Findings 31 Escape lighting order and maintenance Escape lighting adequate and in good order but not maintained regularly. Some further improvement may be necessary in terms of inspection and maintenance. 32 Fire alarm condition Fire alarm is in condition but need regular inspection and maintenance. 33 Fire alarm testing Only tested twice after installation 34 Fire alarm raising safety No potential safety hazard found. 35 Fire Alarm Call Points Visibility and Location Fire alarm call points visible and there is no potential obstruction found. 36 Number of Fire Extinguishers There are about 11 fire extinguishers mostly located near exits 37 Fire Extinguisher and Fire Blankets Condition and Location Both are in good condition and located in strategic points where it can be access conveniently. 38 Fire Extinguisher Servicing Servicing provided annually by fire extinguisher company 39 Fire Fighting Installation and Automatic Fire Detection System There is sprinkler but there are several smoke detector in kitchen, boiler room, auditorium, and library Stage 5 No. Adequacy of Existing Fire Safety Procedures and Necessary Improvements Findings 40 Recording Findings of Fire Risk Assessment No recording is done 41 Informing staff or representatives about the findings of Risk Assessment Staff was informed during a meeting 42 Preparation of Formal Report No formal report was prepared and submitted to staff 43 Informing others about the risk identified No information is provided to others 44 Informing the building owner about the findings of a fire risk assessment The attention of the building owner was called several times regarding risks but these were done informally and without any clear response from owner. 45 Display of Fire Action Notices Inadequate fire action notices. Notices displayed only in main entrance and exits near the parking lot 46 Existence of Emergency Plan There is not existing emergency plan in case of major fire 47 Safekeeping of Emergency Plan Not applicable as no emergency plan exists 3.2 SWOT ANALYSIS STRENGHT WEAKNESS Smoke alarm Fire Alarm and Call Points in good condition Sufficient number of exits Sufficient number of fire extinguishers Adequate Fire Doors and Mechanism Escape routes free of obstruction Rubbish and Combustible Waste Materials limited Fire extinguisher and blanket location visible and easy to access Fire extinguisher servicing regularly done by competent person Escape route lighting adequate and working Fire Doors open to the direction of final exit No regular maintenance for smoke alarm No storage room for combustible materials and flammable liquids No formal emergency and evacuation plan Staff inadequately trained in fire safety Inadequate fire action signs No smoking area provided No regular inspection and maintenance of electrical and mechanical equipment No record of fire risk assessment Stakeholders are not sufficiently inform about risks in the workplace Absence of clear arson prevention measures No procedure for assisting or helping disabled occupants during a fire OPPORTUNITIES THREATS Regular maintenance of smoke alarm is still possible and can further minimise consequences of fire incidents Building has a number of rooms that can be use for storing combustible materials and flammable liquid. Ex. Room 130 in first floor Management can create a formal emergency and evacuation plan Fire safety training for staff is still possible Smoking area with ashtray can be provided in first and second floor Regular inspection and maintenance can be arrange with service contractor A staff can be assigned to record and keep fire risk assessment data in safe place. A room in the main office. Room 101 for instance Management commitment to fire safety can improve fire safety in this building. Combustible materials and flammable liquids may be use for arson activities Smoke alarm may not work in actual fire due to lack of regular testing and maintenance Absence of formal emergency and evacuation plan may lead to a number of causalities particularly students and disabled occupants Inadequate fire safety training of staff and absence of sufficient fire actions signs can lead to significant damage to property and loss of lives due to ignorance and panic. Electrical equipment fault and mechanical equipment failure resulting to fire Likelihood of arson high 3.3 Risk Ranking Table 1- Risk Ranking (Frequency vs. Probability) Source: Cabinet Office (2012) HIGH PROBABILITY (Likely to occur in the immediate/near future) Fire and casualties due to inadequate commitment to fire safety Injuries and deaths due lack of formal emergency and evacuation plan Arson resulting due to absence of arson prevention measures Exposed combustible materials and flammable liquids fuel for fire MEDIUM PROBABILITY (Will likely occur in time if not prevented) Fire due to inadequate fire safety awareness and training Casualties due to absence of formal risk assessment procedures. Portable electrical and mechanical equipment fault Smoke alarm failure LOW PROBABILITY (Remote or unlikely) Slip and trip Fire due to absence of smoking area SMALL LOSS MEDIUM LOSS LARGE LOSS Table 2- Risk Ranking Table ( Ranking Frequency Severity Safeguards 1 Never yet observed Negligible Invulnerability 2 Rare event Cosmetic Secure 3 Statistic exist Superficial Contained 4 Occasional Peripheral Compensative 5 Sporadic Significant Suppressive 6 Probable Structural Moderative 7 Periodic Serious Strategic 8 Regular Permanent effect Minimal 9 Likely Critical Superficial 10 Constant Catastrophic Prone 3.4 FMEA- Failure Mode and Effect Analysis Item Description Function Failure Mode Failure Cause Failure Effect on Failure detection method Remarks Building People Business Smoke alarm Warn against fire Failure to detect Inadequate maintenance./regular inspection and testing Fire damage Injuries /Death Reputation/decreasing number of students/reduced profit/unnecessary expenses Regular Inspection/Testing Fire alarm and call points Warn against fire Failure to sound alarm/notify occupants Inadequate maintenance/inspection/testing Fire damage Injuries /Deaths Reputation/decreasing number of students/reduced profit/unnecessary expenses Regular Inspection/Testing Fire door self-closing mechanism Prevent fire spread Failure to automatically close Inadequate inspection and maintenance Fire damage Injuries/ Deaths Reputation/decreasing number of students/reduced profit/unnecessary expenses Regular Inspection/Testing Electrical wiring Supply electricity Wiring defect/ damaged insulation Improper maintenance/lack of regular inspection Fire damage Injuries/ Deaths Reputation/decreasing number of students/reduced profit/unnecessary expenses Regular inspection/testing Portable electrical equipment Productivity/Convenience Short circuit/overheating Lack of maintenance Fire damage Injuries/ Deaths Reputation/decreasing number of students/reduced profit/unnecessary expenses Regular inspection and maintenance Fire extinguisher Immediate fire suppression Empty/Pin cannot be removed/ loss of pressure Improper seal/ breakage and damage to parts/lack of maintenance Fire damage Injuries/ deaths Reputation/decreasing number of students/reduced profit/unnecessary expenses Regular inspection and maintenance Escape route lighting Emergency lighting during a fire No power/ Battery not working or drained Improper maintenance Injuries/ deaths Reputation/decreasing number of students/reduced profit/unnecessary expenses Regular inspection and maintenance 3.5 Fault Tree 3.6 Common Cause Analysis 3.7 Reliability Block Diagram f= building fire safety w= warning devices s= fire suppression equipment e= emergency and evacuation plan e= fire safety awareness t= staff training and fire drill r= regular inspection and maintenance of equipment 3.8 Event Tree 3.9 Cost Benefit Analysis Table 3 - Technical School Data - Cost based on UK Department of Education (2013) Cost if room unavailable (£/day) Premises no. rooms typ. area (sq.m) mean inaccuracy (%) Classroom 43 66 £100 50% Cloakroom 2 12 £50 50% Corridor 8 100 £1,000 50% Main Hall 2 240 £1,000 50% Store Room 7 6 £50 50% Laboratory 3 102 £100 50% Office 3 18 £100 50% Total area (sq.m) 4544 £15,350 Other data value No. pupils 200 whole school number No. teachers 15 No. other staff 10 Location Rel. no. of fires 1.0 compared to National average Table 4- Cost and Cost Benefit Analysis (Source: UK Department of Education, 2013). Totals cost inaccuracy(%) uncertainty system costs £29,336 8% £2,298 risk reductions (benefits) £9,211 47% £4,309 other associated savings £32,000 8% £2,417 difference (benefits - costs) £11,875 46% £5,449 confidence: pr(+ve difference) 99% Costs (£, per year) Additional benefits (£, per year) Systems summary availability cost inaccuracy(%) uncertainty cost inaccuracy(%) uncertainty sprinkler 1 £9,837 2% £228 ~ £22,000 10% £2,200 security 1 £11,287 18% £2,061 ~ £10,000 10% £1,000 detection 1 £8,211 12% £990 ~ £0 0% £0 system 4 0 Table 5- Constant where CBA calculation is based (Source: UK Department of Education, 2013) Constants where CBA is derived Conversion factors for various risk components £/unit inaccuracy (%) Deaths (people) £1,350,000 5% Injuries (people) £65,000 5% Building fabric (£) £1 0% Building contents (£) £1 0% Building Unavailability (days) £10,000 100% Environmental Damage (Eco-points) £50 100% Other 1 £1 0% Other 2 £1 0% Etc £1 0% Other "constants" discount rate (for capital recovery factor) 0.035 0% Table 6- Risk Data for Building Parts (Source: UK Department of Education, 2013) Risk Summary 1 Baseline Risks (per year) Reduced Risks (per year) cost (£) inaccuracy (%) uncertainty (£) cost (£) inaccuracy (%) uncertainty (£) Total Risks (£, per year) £10,124 42% £4,269 £912 64% £584 classroom fires £4,796 75% £3,579 £339 117% £397 cloakroom fires £2,204 75% £1,650 £156 117% £183 corridor fires £891 90% £799 £43 110% £48 lab fires £67 66% £45 £7 128% £10 main hall fires £1,664 84% £1,394 £335 115% £384 office fires £118 78% £92 £10 113% £12 store room fires £384 84% £323 £21 103% £22 Total no. of fires (1/yr) 8.18E-02 3.05E-02 Table 7- Details of Above Risk Summary 1 Baseline Risks Reduced Risks Scenario Risks frequency loss (£) risk (£/yr) frequency loss (£) risk (£/yr) classroom(1): small fire 2.94E-02 £24,810 £731 1.33E-02 £24,810 £331 classroom(2): serious fire 2.29E-03 £233,520 £535 1.11E-04 £123,216 £14 classroom(3): major fire 6.87E-04 £1,507,040 £1,036 1.45E-05 £792,431 £11 classroom(4): catastrophic fire 2.94E-04 £4,307,040 £1,268 6.21E-06 £2,262,431 £14 cloakroom(1): small fire 9.09E-03 £24,810 £226 4.12E-03 £24,810 £102 cloakroom(2): serious fire 7.07E-04 £233,520 £165 3.42E-05 £123,216 £4 cloakroom(3): major fire 2.12E-04 £1,507,040 £320 4.47E-06 £792,431 £4 cloakroom(4): catastrophic fire 9.09E-05 £4,307,040 £392 1.92E-06 £2,262,431 £4 corridor(1): small fire 8.14E-03 £24,810 £202 3.69E-03 £24,810 £92 corridor(2): serious fire 3.62E-04 £233,520 £84 2.49E-05 £123,216 £3 corridor(3): major fire 3.80E-04 £1,507,040 £572 8.01E-06 £792,431 £6 corridor(4): catastrophic fire 1.63E-04 £4,307,040 £701 3.43E-06 £2,262,431 £8 laboratory(1): small fire 2.79E-03 £60,260 £168 1.27E-03 £60,260 £76 laboratory(2): serious fire 2.17E-04 £528,520 £115 1.05E-05 £278,091 £3 laboratory(3): major fire 6.51E-05 £1,357,040 £88 1.37E-06 £713,681 £1 laboratory(4): catastrophic fire 2.79E-05 £4,307,040 £120 5.89E-07 £2,262,431 £1 main hall(1): small fire 1.22E-02 £116,810 £1,428 5.07E-03 £116,810 £593 main hall(2): serious fire 1.32E-04 £978,520 £130 7.83E-05 £514,341 £40 main hall(3): major fire 1.72E-04 £3,607,040 £621 2.84E-05 £1,894,931 £54 main hall(4): catastrophic fire 7.37E-05 £4,307,040 £318 1.22E-05 £2,262,431 £28 office(1): small fire 9.45E-03 £27,810 £263 4.29E-03 £27,810 £119 office(2): serious fire 7.35E-04 £208,520 £153 3.55E-05 £110,091 £4 office(3): major fire 2.21E-04 £707,040 £156 4.65E-06 £372,431 £2 office(4): catastrophic fire 9.45E-05 £4,307,040 £407 1.99E-06 £2,262,431 £5 store room(1): small fire 1.47E-02 £26,280 £386 7.42E-03 £26,280 £195 store room(2): serious fire 2.57E-03 £213,520 £549 1.24E-04 £112,716 £14 store room(3): major fire 7.71E-04 £707,040 £545 1.63E-05 £372,431 £6 store room(4): catastrophic fire 3.31E-04 £4,307,040 £1,424 6.97E-06 £2,262,431 £16 Table 8- Risk Data for Deaths, Injuries, and Property Damage (Source: UK Department of Education, 2013) Risk Summary 2 Baseline Risks (per year) Reduced Risks (per year) Net Benefit (per year) cost (£) fraction cost (£) fraction cost (£) Total Risks (£, per year) £10,124 100% £912 100% £9,211 Deaths £13 0% £2 0% £11 Injuries £151 1% £24 3% £127 building damage £2,921 29% £142 16% £2,779 contents damage £1,377 14% £60 7% £1,316 building unavailability £5,038 50% £671 74% £4,367 room unavailability £0 0% £0 0% £0 environmental damage £624 6% £13 1% £611 Other Total no. of fires (1/yr) 8.18E-02 100% 3.05E-02 37% Table 9- Details of Risk Summary 2 Baseline Risks Reduced Risks Death Risks frequency loss (£) risk (£/yr) frequency loss (£) risk (£/yr) classroom(1): small fire 2.94E-02 £135 £4 1.33E-02 £135 £2 classroom(2): serious fire 2.29E-03 £270 £1 1.11E-04 £142 £0 classroom(3): major fire 6.87E-04 £540 £0 1.45E-05 £284 £0 classroom(4): catastrophic fire 2.94E-04 £540 £0 6.21E-06 £284 £0 cloakroom(1): small fire 9.09E-03 £135 £1 4.12E-03 £135 £1 cloakroom(2): serious fire 7.07E-04 £270 £0 3.42E-05 £142 £0 cloakroom(3): major fire 2.12E-04 £540 £0 4.47E-06 £284 £0 cloakroom(4): catastrophic fire 9.09E-05 £540 £0 1.92E-06 £284 £0 corridor(1): small fire 8.14E-03 £135 £1 3.69E-03 £135 £0 corridor(2): serious fire 3.62E-04 £270 £0 2.49E-05 £142 £0 corridor(3): major fire 3.80E-04 £540 £0 8.01E-06 £284 £0 corridor(4): catastrophic fire 1.63E-04 £540 £0 3.43E-06 £284 £0 laboratory(1): small fire 2.79E-03 £135 £0 1.27E-03 £135 £0 laboratory(2): serious fire 2.17E-04 £270 £0 1.05E-05 £142 £0 laboratory(3): major fire 6.51E-05 £540 £0 1.37E-06 £284 £0 laboratory(4): catastrophic fire 2.79E-05 £540 £0 5.89E-07 £284 £0 main hall(1): small fire 1.22E-02 £135 £2 5.07E-03 £135 £1 main hall(2): serious fire 1.32E-04 £270 £0 7.83E-05 £142 £0 main hall(3): major fire 1.72E-04 £540 £0 2.84E-05 £284 £0 main hall(4): catastrophic fire 7.37E-05 £540 £0 1.22E-05 £284 £0 office(1): small fire 9.45E-03 £135 £1 4.29E-03 £135 £1 office(2): serious fire 7.35E-04 £270 £0 3.55E-05 £142 £0 office(3): major fire 2.21E-04 £540 £0 4.65E-06 £284 £0 office(4): catastrophic fire 9.45E-05 £540 £0 1.99E-06 £284 £0 store room(1): small fire 1.47E-02 £68 £1 7.42E-03 £68 £1 store room(2): serious fire 2.57E-03 £270 £1 1.24E-04 £142 £0 store room(3): major fire 7.71E-04 £540 £0 1.63E-05 £284 £0 store room(4): catastrophic fire 3.31E-04 £540 £0 6.97E-06 £284 £0 Baseline Risks Reduced Risks Injury Risks frequency loss (£) risk (£/yr) frequency loss (£) risk (£/yr) classroom(1): small fire 2.94E-02 £1,625 £48 1.33E-02 £1,625 £22 classroom(2): serious fire 2.29E-03 £3,250 £7 1.11E-04 £2,324 £0 classroom(3): major fire 6.87E-04 £6,500 £4 1.45E-05 £4,648 £0 classroom(4): catastrophic fire 2.94E-04 £6,500 £2 6.21E-06 £4,648 £0 cloakroom(1): small fire 9.09E-03 £1,625 £15 4.12E-03 £1,625 £7 cloakroom(2): serious fire 7.07E-04 £3,250 £2 3.42E-05 £2,324 £0 cloakroom(3): major fire 2.12E-04 £6,500 £1 4.47E-06 £4,648 £0 cloakroom(4): catastrophic fire 9.09E-05 £6,500 £1 1.92E-06 £4,648 £0 corridor(1): small fire 8.14E-03 £1,625 £13 3.69E-03 £1,625 £6 corridor(2): serious fire 3.62E-04 £3,250 £1 2.49E-05 £2,324 £0 corridor(3): major fire 3.80E-04 £6,500 £2 8.01E-06 £4,648 £0 corridor(4): catastrophic fire 1.63E-04 £6,500 £1 3.43E-06 £4,648 £0 laboratory(1): small fire 2.79E-03 £1,625 £5 1.27E-03 £1,625 £2 laboratory(2): serious fire 2.17E-04 £3,250 £1 1.05E-05 £2,324 £0 laboratory(3): major fire 6.51E-05 £6,500 £0 1.37E-06 £4,648 £0 laboratory(4): catastrophic fire 2.79E-05 £6,500 £0 5.89E-07 £4,648 £0 main hall(1): small fire 1.22E-02 £1,625 £20 5.07E-03 £1,625 £8 main hall(2): serious fire 1.32E-04 £3,250 £0 7.83E-05 £2,324 £0 main hall(3): major fire 1.72E-04 £6,500 £1 2.84E-05 £4,648 £0 main hall(4): catastrophic fire 7.37E-05 £6,500 £0 1.22E-05 £4,648 £0 office(1): small fire 9.45E-03 £1,625 £15 4.29E-03 £1,625 £7 office(2): serious fire 7.35E-04 £3,250 £2 3.55E-05 £2,324 £0 office(3): major fire 2.21E-04 £6,500 £1 4.65E-06 £4,648 £0 office(4): catastrophic fire 9.45E-05 £6,500 £1 1.99E-06 £4,648 £0 store room(1): small fire 1.47E-02 £163 £2 7.42E-03 £163 £1 store room(2): serious fire 2.57E-03 £3,250 £8 1.24E-04 £2,324 £0 store room(3): major fire 7.71E-04 £6,500 £5 1.63E-05 £4,648 £0 store room(4): catastrophic fire 3.31E-04 £6,500 £2 6.97E-06 £4,648 £0 Baseline Risks Reduced Risks Building Risks frequency loss (£) risk (£/yr) frequency loss (£) risk (£/yr) classroom(1): small fire 2.94E-02 £2,000 £59 1.33E-02 £2,000 £27 classroom(2): serious fire 2.29E-03 £100,000 £229 1.11E-04 £52,500 £6 classroom(3): major fire 6.87E-04 £750,000 £515 1.45E-05 £393,750 £6 classroom(4): catastrophic fire 2.94E-04 £1,000,000 £294 6.21E-06 £525,000 £3 cloakroom(1): small fire 9.09E-03 £2,000 £18 4.12E-03 £2,000 £8 cloakroom(2): serious fire 7.07E-04 £100,000 £71 3.42E-05 £52,500 £2 cloakroom(3): major fire 2.12E-04 £750,000 £159 4.47E-06 £393,750 £2 cloakroom(4): catastrophic fire 9.09E-05 £1,000,000 £91 1.92E-06 £525,000 £1 corridor(1): small fire 8.14E-03 £2,000 £16 3.69E-03 £2,000 £7 corridor(2): serious fire 3.62E-04 £100,000 £36 2.49E-05 £52,500 £1 corridor(3): major fire 3.80E-04 £750,000 £285 8.01E-06 £393,750 £3 corridor(4): catastrophic fire 1.63E-04 £1,000,000 £163 3.43E-06 £525,000 £2 laboratory(1): small fire 2.79E-03 £3,000 £8 1.27E-03 £3,000 £4 laboratory(2): serious fire 2.17E-04 £100,000 £22 1.05E-05 £52,500 £1 laboratory(3): major fire 6.51E-05 £500,000 £33 1.37E-06 £262,500 £0 laboratory(4): catastrophic fire 2.79E-05 £1,000,000 £28 5.89E-07 £525,000 £0 main hall(1): small fire 1.22E-02 £10,000 £122 5.07E-03 £10,000 £51 main hall(2): serious fire 1.32E-04 £250,000 £33 7.83E-05 £131,250 £10 main hall(3): major fire 1.72E-04 £2,000,000 £344 2.84E-05 £1,050,000 £30 main hall(4): catastrophic fire 7.37E-05 £1,000,000 £74 1.22E-05 £525,000 £6 office(1): small fire 9.45E-03 £1,000 £9 4.29E-03 £1,000 £4 office(2): serious fire 7.35E-04 £25,000 £18 3.55E-05 £13,125 £0 office(3): major fire 2.21E-04 £150,000 £33 4.65E-06 £78,750 £0 office(4): catastrophic fire 9.45E-05 £1,000,000 £95 1.99E-06 £525,000 £1 store room(1): small fire 1.47E-02 £1,000 £15 7.42E-03 £1,000 £7 store room(2): serious fire 2.57E-03 £25,000 £64 1.24E-04 £13,125 £2 store room(3): major fire 7.71E-04 £150,000 £116 1.63E-05 £78,750 £1 store room(4): catastrophic fire 3.31E-04 £1,000,000 £331 6.97E-06 £525,000 £4 Baseline Risks Reduced Risks Contents Risks frequency loss (£) risk (£/yr) frequency loss (£) risk (£/yr) classroom(1): small fire 2.94E-02 £1,000 £29 1.33E-02 £1,000 £13 classroom(2): serious fire 2.29E-03 £25,000 £57 1.11E-04 £13,125 £1 classroom(3): major fire 6.87E-04 £150,000 £103 1.45E-05 £78,750 £1 classroom(4): catastrophic fire 2.94E-04 £1,000,000 £294 6.21E-06 £525,000 £3 cloakroom(1): small fire 9.09E-03 £1,000 £9 4.12E-03 £1,000 £4 cloakroom(2): serious fire 7.07E-04 £25,000 £18 3.42E-05 £13,125 £0 cloakroom(3): major fire 2.12E-04 £150,000 £32 4.47E-06 £78,750 £0 cloakroom(4): catastrophic fire 9.09E-05 £1,000,000 £91 1.92E-06 £525,000 £1 corridor(1): small fire 8.14E-03 £1,000 £8 3.69E-03 £1,000 £4 corridor(2): serious fire 3.62E-04 £25,000 £9 2.49E-05 £13,125 £0 corridor(3): major fire 3.80E-04 £150,000 £57 8.01E-06 £78,750 £1 corridor(4): catastrophic fire 1.63E-04 £1,000,000 £163 3.43E-06 £525,000 £2 laboratory(1): small fire 2.79E-03 £5,000 £14 1.27E-03 £5,000 £6 laboratory(2): serious fire 2.17E-04 £75,000 £16 1.05E-05 £39,375 £0 laboratory(3): major fire 6.51E-05 £150,000 £10 1.37E-06 £78,750 £0 laboratory(4): catastrophic fire 2.79E-05 £1,000,000 £28 5.89E-07 £525,000 £0 main hall(1): small fire 1.22E-02 £5,000 £61 5.07E-03 £5,000 £25 main hall(2): serious fire 1.32E-04 £150,000 £20 7.83E-05 £78,750 £6 main hall(3): major fire 1.72E-04 £500,000 £86 2.84E-05 £262,500 £7 main hall(4): catastrophic fire 7.37E-05 £1,000,000 £74 1.22E-05 £525,000 £6 office(1): small fire 9.45E-03 £5,000 £47 4.29E-03 £5,000 £21 office(2): serious fire 7.35E-04 £75,000 £55 3.55E-05 £39,375 £1 office(3): major fire 2.21E-04 £150,000 £33 4.65E-06 £78,750 £0 office(4): catastrophic fire 9.45E-05 £1,000,000 £95 1.99E-06 £525,000 £1 store room(1): small fire 1.47E-02 £5,000 £73 7.42E-03 £5,000 £37 store room(2): serious fire 2.57E-03 £75,000 £193 1.24E-04 £39,375 £5 store room(3): major fire 7.71E-04 £150,000 £116 1.63E-05 £78,750 £1 store room(4): catastrophic fire 3.31E-04 £1,000,000 £331 6.97E-06 £525,000 £4 Baseline Risks Reduced Risks Building unavailability Risks frequency loss (£) risk (£/yr) frequency loss (£) risk (£/yr) classroom(1): small fire 2.94E-02 £20,000 £589 1.33E-02 £20,000 £267 classroom(2): serious fire 2.29E-03 £100,000 £229 1.11E-04 £52,500 £6 classroom(3): major fire 6.87E-04 £500,000 £344 1.45E-05 £262,500 £4 classroom(4): catastrophic fire 2.94E-04 £1,800,000 £530 6.21E-06 £945,000 £6 cloakroom(1): small fire 9.09E-03 £20,000 £182 4.12E-03 £20,000 £82 cloakroom(2): serious fire 7.07E-04 £100,000 £71 3.42E-05 £52,500 £2 cloakroom(3): major fire 2.12E-04 £500,000 £106 4.47E-06 £262,500 £1 cloakroom(4): catastrophic fire 9.09E-05 £1,800,000 £164 1.92E-06 £945,000 £2 corridor(1): small fire 8.14E-03 £20,000 £163 3.69E-03 £20,000 £74 corridor(2): serious fire 3.62E-04 £100,000 £36 2.49E-05 £52,500 £1 corridor(3): major fire 3.80E-04 £500,000 £190 8.01E-06 £262,500 £2 corridor(4): catastrophic fire 1.63E-04 £1,800,000 £293 3.43E-06 £945,000 £3 laboratory(1): small fire 2.79E-03 £50,000 £140 1.27E-03 £50,000 £63 laboratory(2): serious fire 2.17E-04 £250,000 £54 1.05E-05 £131,250 £1 laboratory(3): major fire 6.51E-05 £500,000 £33 1.37E-06 £262,500 £0 laboratory(4): catastrophic fire 2.79E-05 £1,800,000 £50 5.89E-07 £945,000 £1 main hall(1): small fire 1.22E-02 £100,000 £1,223 5.07E-03 £100,000 £507 main hall(2): serious fire 1.32E-04 £500,000 £66 7.83E-05 £262,500 £21 main hall(3): major fire 1.72E-04 £900,000 £155 2.84E-05 £472,500 £13 main hall(4): catastrophic fire 7.37E-05 £1,800,000 £133 1.22E-05 £945,000 £11 office(1): small fire 9.45E-03 £20,000 £189 4.29E-03 £20,000 £86 office(2): serious fire 7.35E-04 £100,000 £74 3.55E-05 £52,500 £2 office(3): major fire 2.21E-04 £300,000 £66 4.65E-06 £157,500 £1 office(4): catastrophic fire 9.45E-05 £1,800,000 £170 1.99E-06 £945,000 £2 store room(1): small fire 1.47E-02 £20,000 £294 7.42E-03 £20,000 £148 store room(2): serious fire 2.57E-03 £100,000 £257 1.24E-04 £52,500 £7 store room(3): major fire 7.71E-04 £300,000 £231 1.63E-05 £157,500 £3 store room(4): catastrophic fire 3.31E-04 £1,800,000 £595 6.97E-06 £945,000 £7 Baseline Risks Reduced Risks Room unavailability Risks frequency loss (£) risk (£/yr) frequency loss (£) risk (£/yr) classroom(1): small fire 2.94E-02 £0 £0 1.33E-02 £0 £0 classroom(2): serious fire 2.29E-03 £0 £0 1.11E-04 £0 £0 classroom(3): major fire 6.87E-04 £0 £0 1.45E-05 £0 £0 classroom(4): catastrophic fire 2.94E-04 £0 £0 6.21E-06 £0 £0 cloakroom(1): small fire 9.09E-03 £0 £0 4.12E-03 £0 £0 cloakroom(2): serious fire 7.07E-04 £0 £0 3.42E-05 £0 £0 cloakroom(3): major fire 2.12E-04 £0 £0 4.47E-06 £0 £0 cloakroom(4): catastrophic fire 9.09E-05 £0 £0 1.92E-06 £0 £0 corridor(1): small fire 8.14E-03 £0 £0 3.69E-03 £0 £0 corridor(2): serious fire 3.62E-04 £0 £0 2.49E-05 £0 £0 corridor(3): major fire 3.80E-04 £0 £0 8.01E-06 £0 £0 corridor(4): catastrophic fire 1.63E-04 £0 £0 3.43E-06 £0 £0 laboratory(1): small fire 2.79E-03 £0 £0 1.27E-03 £0 £0 laboratory(2): serious fire 2.17E-04 £0 £0 1.05E-05 £0 £0 laboratory(3): major fire 6.51E-05 £0 £0 1.37E-06 £0 £0 laboratory(4): catastrophic fire 2.79E-05 £0 £0 5.89E-07 £0 £0 main hall(1): small fire 1.22E-02 £0 £0 5.07E-03 £0 £0 main hall(2): serious fire 1.32E-04 £0 £0 7.83E-05 £0 £0 main hall(3): major fire 1.72E-04 £0 £0 2.84E-05 £0 £0 main hall(4): catastrophic fire 7.37E-05 £0 £0 1.22E-05 £0 £0 office(1): small fire 9.45E-03 £0 £0 4.29E-03 £0 £0 office(2): serious fire 7.35E-04 £0 £0 3.55E-05 £0 £0 office(3): major fire 2.21E-04 £0 £0 4.65E-06 £0 £0 office(4): catastrophic fire 9.45E-05 £0 £0 1.99E-06 £0 £0 store room(1): small fire 1.47E-02 £0 £0 7.42E-03 £0 £0 store room(2): serious fire 2.57E-03 £0 £0 1.24E-04 £0 £0 store room(3): major fire 7.71E-04 £0 £0 1.63E-05 £0 £0 store room(4): catastrophic fire 3.31E-04 £0 £0 6.97E-06 £0 £0 Baseline Risks Reduced Risks Environmental Risks frequency loss (£) risk (£/yr) frequency loss (£) risk (£/yr) classroom(1): small fire 2.94E-02 £50 £1 1.33E-02 £50 £1 classroom(2): serious fire 2.29E-03 £5,000 £11 1.11E-04 £2,625 £0 classroom(3): major fire 6.87E-04 £100,000 £69 1.45E-05 £52,500 £1 classroom(4): catastrophic fire 2.94E-04 £500,000 £147 6.21E-06 £262,500 £2 cloakroom(1): small fire 9.09E-03 £50 £0 4.12E-03 £50 £0 cloakroom(2): serious fire 7.07E-04 £5,000 £4 3.42E-05 £2,625 £0 cloakroom(3): major fire 2.12E-04 £100,000 £21 4.47E-06 £52,500 £0 cloakroom(4): catastrophic fire 9.09E-05 £500,000 £45 1.92E-06 £262,500 £1 corridor(1): small fire 8.14E-03 £50 £0 3.69E-03 £50 £0 corridor(2): serious fire 3.62E-04 £5,000 £2 2.49E-05 £2,625 £0 corridor(3): major fire 3.80E-04 £100,000 £38 8.01E-06 £52,500 £0 corridor(4): catastrophic fire 1.63E-04 £500,000 £81 3.43E-06 £262,500 £1 laboratory(1): small fire 2.79E-03 £500 £1 1.27E-03 £500 £1 laboratory(2): serious fire 2.17E-04 £100,000 £22 1.05E-05 £52,500 £1 laboratory(3): major fire 6.51E-05 £200,000 £13 1.37E-06 £105,000 £0 laboratory(4): catastrophic fire 2.79E-05 £500,000 £14 5.89E-07 £262,500 £0 main hall(1): small fire 1.22E-02 £50 £1 5.07E-03 £50 £0 main hall(2): serious fire 1.32E-04 £75,000 £10 7.83E-05 £39,375 £3 main hall(3): major fire 1.72E-04 £200,000 £34 2.84E-05 £105,000 £3 main hall(4): catastrophic fire 7.37E-05 £500,000 £37 1.22E-05 £262,500 £3 office(1): small fire 9.45E-03 £50 £0 4.29E-03 £50 £0 office(2): serious fire 7.35E-04 £5,000 £4 3.55E-05 £2,625 £0 office(3): major fire 2.21E-04 £100,000 £22 4.65E-06 £52,500 £0 office(4): catastrophic fire 9.45E-05 £500,000 £47 1.99E-06 £262,500 £1 store room(1): small fire 1.47E-02 £50 £1 7.42E-03 £50 £0 store room(2): serious fire 2.57E-03 £10,000 £26 1.24E-04 £5,250 £1 store room(3): major fire 7.71E-04 £100,000 £77 1.63E-05 £52,500 £1 store room(4): catastrophic fire 3.31E-04 £500,000 £165 6.97E-06 £262,500 £2 Summary Chart for Table 6 3.10 Utility Function The main idea behind Utility Function is to quantify the risk consequences through loss function or the probability of getting the worst possible consequences (Ben-Asher, 2008, p.285). It other words, risks is prioritised based on their expected loss. Risk assessment for the Technical School Building therefore use a pre-defined rating developed by Robertson (2000) taken from Ben-Asher (2008, p.291) for performance consequences which is this case is the failure to meet the requirements of fire safety. Table 10- Consequences of Risk Occurrence (Source: Ben-Asher, 2008) Rating Performance Consequences Category 0.9 Failure to meet the requirement would result in mission failure. Significant degradation/non-achievement of technical performance Catastrophic 0.7 Failure to meet the requirement would degrade system performance to a point where mission success is questionable. Some reduction in technical performance Critical 0.5 Failure to meet the requirement would result in degradation of secondary mission. Minimal to small reduction in technical performance. Marginal 0.1 Failure to meet the requirement would create inconvenience or non-operational impact. No reduction in technical performance Negligible Note the term “mission” in this table will be treated as a mission to attain fire safety in the Technical School Building. Similarly, the term “requirement” is referring to fire safety requirements while achievement of “technical performance” is maintaining high-level of fire safety in the building. Therefore, the “secondary mission” in the table is equivalent to “small” or minimal reduction in the expected performance of fire safety strategies. For instance, failure to maintain a fire detection system can lead to catastrophic consequences thus 0.9. Similarly, failure to provide one additional exit sign will have negligible impact to the safety of the building and therefore with rating of 0.1 as shown in the graph below. Figure 3- Utility-based function The requirements in X axis arranged according to their worst possible outcome Y indicate the best possible outcome. 3.11 Business Continue Planning A business continuity plan involves understanding of critical activities (HM Government, 2006, p.6) thus the first step is to conduct a business impact analysis. BIA can identify critical activities required to deliver the services which in this case are services being delivered by the Technical School. BCP Traffic Light Trigger Mechanism (LFRS, 2011) 4. Reflection of the Risk Assessment Methods 4.1 Pros and Cons There are methods of risk assessment but the most widely used are fault tree, risk matrix analysis, tick list or check list, event tree, cost-benefit analysis, SWOT, FMEA, Common Cause, Reliability Block Diagram, and Utility Function (Lewis, 2007, p.1-8). According to Ayyub (2011), these methods are both qualitative and quantitative risk assessment methods and the simplest of all is the ticklist or check list. However, different methods have different practical fields of application. For instance, in the comparative analysis of several risk assessment methods, Fault Tree Analysis appears comprehensive, systematic, intuitive, clear, and logical than the others but it requires significant familiarity with the system. Moreover, particularly when dealing with large data of a certain system, Fault Tree Analysis requires quantitative calculation that may not be convenient for others. Similarly, Risk Matrix Analysis is excellent in determining risk level but obtaining level of risk loss and probability is somewhat difficult. Moreover, it requires expertise to determine the allowable upper and lower risk accurately. The ticklist on the other hand is straightforward and can easily be accomplished by “ticking” the appropriate standards, norms, and regulations. It can be applied in various situations and use by even inexperienced staff (p.377). However, one concern about ticklist is the difficulty in highlighting the areas that actually need management attention. Another is the lengthiness of answers that in reality has very limited use to management and inappropriate if someone wants to make a quick decision (Dupuy & Paradinas, 2011, p.279). SWOT Analysis presents the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats that will affect the organisation but similar to risk matrix, the values for each category must determined correctly. SWOT appears straightforward but in reality it needs a lot work (Silvers, 2008, p.38). FMEA is a qualitative risk assessment method using non-numeric values or number ranges to express the risk as descriptive values similar to ticklist, PHA, HAZOPS, and Scenario Analysis. These methods are time and cost efficient as no exact value is to be determined. However, like other qualitative methods, FMEA suffers in terms of accuracy as it does not provide the opportunity to measure the impact thus cost benefit analysis is not possible (Camenish et al, 2011, p.261; Poh & Weinert (2008), p.1-14). According to Ericson (2005), Common Cause Failure Analysis is an advantageous method as it is structured, rigorous, and methodical in approach. It has the ability to identify fault events, permits probability assessment of CCF, and provides a more realistic view of system risk (p.420; Hasofer & Thomas, 2008, p.969; Yin & Stephenson, (2012) ). However, based on experience in using this method earlier, use of this method requires training and practical experience as it is more complex compared to other methods. Moreover, it seems limited to hazards associated with CCF and ignore other critical system hazards. Similarly, the Reliability Block Diagram appears more relevant to electronics and mechanical system and seems not practical in assessing fire safety risk. The Utility Function is easy to understand but it is not guaranteed accurate. This is because the ratings were pre-defined and may not be applicable to other system. 4.2 Allocating fixed budget Allocating fixed budget to the risk assessment seems a matter of selecting a cost-effective method. However, cost-effectiveness does not guarantee accuracy and therefore must consider both. The ticklist for instance seems appropriate for fixed budgeted assessment as it is simple to use and does not complex calculation to accomplish. However, ticking the correct standards, norms, and regulation is for the well-experienced assessor that will probably demand higher fee. Logically, the more complex the assessment method, the more difficult the work and higher the fee, thus selecting an easier method like the ticklist is more preferable. 5. Conclusion A risk assessment of Computer Technical School was conducted using 11 different methods of risk assessment. Risks were identified successfully and the fire safety problems in the school building were fully understood. The risk assessment methods used in this study vary not only complexity but applicability as some of them particularly those that are commonly applied in electronics and complex system seems not practical for fire risk assessment. The ticklist is more straightforward and easy to understand and in this study’s opinion, the method is more relevant to fire risk assessment. This is because such method can be applied by the building owner or staff knowledgeable in UK standards, norms, and regulations. The use of other methods particularly those that involve numerical analysis are not recommended for fire risk assessment. 6. References Ayyub B, (2011), Vulnerability, Uncertainty, and Risk Analysis,, Modelling and Management, ASCE Publications, US Ben-Asher J, (2008), Development Program Risk Assessment Based on Utility Theory, Risk Management Journal, 10, pp.285-299 Berg H, (2010), Risk Management: Procedures, Methods, and Experiences, Vol. 1, pp.79-95 Cabinet Office, (2012), National Risk Register of Civil Emergencies, The Stationery Office, UK Camenisch J, Hubner S, Murayama Y, Portmann A, & Rieder C, (2011), Future Challenges in Security and Privacy for Academia and Industry, Springer, Germany Dupuy M. & Paradinas P, (2001), Trusted Information: The New Decade Challenge, Springer, Germany Ericson C, (2005), Hazard Analysis Techniques for System Safety, John Wiley & Sons, US Graham T, (2012), The Absolute Basics of Risk Assessment, UCLAN, UK Hasofer M. & Thomas I, (2008), Cost Benefit Analysis of a Fire Safety System Based on the Life Qualify Index, Fire Safety Science Proceedings, pp. 969-980 HM Government, (2006), Business Continuity, The Stationery Office, UK Lewis S, (2007), Risk Criteria- When is low enough good enough? Risktec Solutions, UK LFRS, (2011), Business Continuity Planning, Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service, UK Li Y. & Turner S, (2012), Cost-Benefit Analysis of Sprinklers for Property Protection, University of Canterbury, New Zealand Poh W. & Weinert D, (2008), Property Fire Protection for New School Building, Umow Lai Pty Ltd, Victoria, Australia UK Department of Education, (2013), Cost Benefit Analysis for School, available online at http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/adminandfinance/schoolscapital/buildingsanddesign/environmental/a0063718/fire-safety-design-guidance-building-bulletin-100 Silvers J, (2008), Risk Management for Meetings and Events, Routledge, UK Thomson N, (2001), Fire Hazards in Industry, Elsevier, UK Read More