5th February 2018
It has long been the practice of companies working in the Civil Construction industry to be innovative, to encourage the workforce to participate in initiative schemes, from offering rewards for engineering solutions to solving issues around the capability of plant and equipment. Let's face it, there are very few pieces of kit out there in the
market place that do exactly what we need them to do and so there is always room for some improvement.
Things are much improved of course, but there is always the odd 'tweak' that could be done to get around an obstacle or to reduce time on site and increase profit margins, and there it is right
there - the driver of all improvements since the Industrial Revolution - is 'profit'.
However, times, as they
say are a changing! Gone are the 'back-of-a fag-packet' drawings and sketches or the Heath Robinson approaches that we then expect our engineering workshops to create. The modern, sophisticated
organisation today will have in place a comprehensive procedure for looking at Plant and Equipment modifications.
Of course - legislation and the standard ISO9001:2015 section 8.5.6, raises its necessary head requiring us to review and control changes, retain documented information describing the results of the review,
authorising the review and raising necessary actions arising from the review.
There is the common misconception that a change, thought about and agreed among contract managers, designers, plant managers
is ok, often with advice sought from the manufacturer and tests undertaken. However, a very important part of the process is missed. Documentation of the process, recording all the necessary elements that have led to the accurate assessment of the 'change control' is a requirement.
Good documented evidence will record the facts and 'evidence' the process, the controls that lead us to believe that whatever changes are made are legitimate and arrived at without raising the risk level. Health & Safety at Work Act (1974)
too requires us, as an employer, to provide a safe system of work and PUWER 1998 clearly considers
change in the body of the regulation. It is clear that there is a duty of care and a legal and procedural requirement that addresses in full, change control.
However, can we really be saving money or increasing profit margins by carrying out unplanned change? We must as an industry STOP and consider the consequences of dealing with a fatality or serious injury through unplanned,
unauthorised and unrecorded change.
The loss or serious injury of a loved one through lack of planning is suffered all too often in our industry. We must consider management too as, through changes in the law, one could potentially find themselves in jail under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. The financial implications of a huge fine to the
organisation, if found to be in breach of the law, regulation, or company procedure could prove to be the undoing of years of good practice in other areas.
Therefore, it is easy to see how financial and reputational damage to the
organisation could prove damaging to all interested parties.
So, what can be done? The implementation of a procedure to challenge change must come from '
Risk based thinking' through planning, review
and improvement as it makes us think ahead. Change Control must be a preventative tool to establish sound, comprehensive, understandable and practical procedure and process and not an interference or hindrance to improved practices. The idea is not to prevent
change, but to control change.
Risk based thinking leads to and builds upon embedded safety cultures, always asking those questions that prompt us to consider safe systems of work.
- Why? Why do we need this change? (safety, wellbeing, efficiency, financial gain)
- What? What will it achieve? (a safer system of work)
- How? How will we achieve it?
- Where? Where will it be used?
- Who? Who will benefit?
The emphasis of how important it is to approach change must be understood so that the
organisation, the senior management
and the workforce are as safe as can reasonably
expected to be, given that the change has been planned, recorded and signed off by qualified, responsible persons with the authority to do so. The 'fag packet' mentality must be a thing of the past and the question we must all ask when considering overlooking, or we are asked to ignore Change Control Procedures with its inherent intention to save all of us from potential harm, is what if?
< Back to BDA Articles