Difficult Conversations Engineers need to have about Risk

In this episode of Risk! Engineers Talk Governance, due diligence engineers Richard Robinson and Gaye Francis this season’s theme of "Difficult Conversations Engineers Need to Have About Risk". 

Key discussion points include:

• Risk is multidimensional. 
• Risk covers a big domain that has lead to confusion.
• There are three different types of risk, but R2A’s focus is typically on safety risk and project risk – downside risk.
• Commercial industry like to focus on upside, downside risk (risk and reward, risk appetite and innovation), but Engineers should focus on downside risk.
• Innovation and Risk Management is good but not at the expense of zero harm and the WHS/OHS legislation.
• Often innovation is the solution to the problem but cannot compromise safety.
• Innovation cannot be encouraged as the focus of Risk Management.
• Safety risk shouldn’t been seen as an obstruction; safety is non-negotiable.
• Don't just choose one technique because if you do, and particularly if you ignore the WHS legislation requirements, you're going to set yourself up for a pretty serious fall. 

For further information on Richard and Gaye’s consulting work with R2A, head to https://www.r2a.com.au.

 Gaye is also founder of women’s safety workwear company Apto PPE if you’d like to check out the garments at https://www.aptoppe.com.au

Transcript

Megan (Producer) (00:00):

Welcome to Risk! Engineers Talk Governance. In this episode, due diligence engineers Richard Robinson and Gaye Francis discuss the theme of this season: Difficult Conversations Engineers Need to Have About Risk.

(00:18):

We hope you enjoy the chat. If you do, please give us a rating and subscribe on your favourite podcast platform. If you'd like more information on R2A's work or have any feedback or topic ideas, please head to our website www.r2a.com.au.

Gaye Francis (00:38):

Hi Richard.

Richard Robinson (00:39):

Hi Gaye.

Gaye Francis (00:40):

Welcome to another podcast session.

Richard Robinson (00:42):

It's good to be here.

Gaye Francis (00:43):

Excellent, excellent. We're going to touch on the theme of this series, which is the difficult discussions that engineers need to have concerning the issue of risk, or the subject of risk. And we have covered this sort of stuff in some of our earlier podcasts, but I think it's worth going back to that risk is multidimensional.

Richard Robinson (01:04):

That's right. There's no one way to cut to the risk, whatever it is. It's a multidimensional thing. And depending on which technique or idea you use, you'll get different insight. And one of the problems with the word risk, we just cover such a big domain, now everyone's confused. Which leads on to your little frustration just recently with a journo.

Gaye Francis (01:21):

It does. So R2a was asked to provide some input into an article on risk management for Create (Engineers Australia magazine). And so we gave them the stuff that we usually do and sort of pointed out that there were three different types of risk, but our focus is typically on safety risk and project risk.

Richard Robinson (01:41):

And that's just actually downside risk. Which is there's no prospect of gain as opposed to what commercial people like to do, which is the upside, downside risk. Risk and reward is usually the way that's formulated. And which gives rise to the risk appetite statements, which we've mentioned earlier.

Gaye Francis (01:57):

And after that, and the article was drafted, it came back from the editorial that they wanted to be more of a focus on getting past risk adverse responses to enable innovative change. And I found this really interesting and a little bit disappointing, I guess, from an engineering viewpoint because that's typically not what engineers do in their day-to-day business. For me, that's more about an entrepreneurialship -- looking at what ideas you can do and innovation and overcoming some of the risk issues. So risk in that sense is a by-product.

Richard Robinson (02:33):

Yeah, that's right. So the risk reward profile. I mean, we're just talking about it just before the session to try to explain what we're talking about here, but it's a bit like, well, the example I gave, if you're building a bridge, you don't put the site officers under the bridge despite the belief of the engineers the bridge will not fall down during construction, which is what happened in Westgate and crushed the people in the huts below. And also the engineers were on the bridge that went down with it. They didn't believe it was going to fall, and all the calculations and all the evidence you would've asked them said, no, the bridge is going to stay up. But you just avoid avoidable risk if you can. Versus the situation with cars, driving cars around. Everybody knows that driving cars, relatively speaking, is quite a dangerous thing to do, but the benefits we get from driving cars is so great that we all decide that we're going to keep doing it.

Gaye Francis (03:18):

Hopefully by abiding all the rules.

Richard Robinson (03:21):

Well, yes. And as new innovations come in, for example, self-drive cars, I mean, the whole thing was if you drink and drive, you're a bloody idiot. Well, once the car will take you home... you don't worry about it. It's not a problem!

(03:31):

So innovation is good. So it depends what you're trying to achieve. So we're not against the innovation and risk management, but part of our problem is we keep coming across people who keep talking about risk solely as this upside risk and reward thing without realising the zero harm, which is basically what most engineers do most of the time, I have to say, it's got to be safe. And safe doesn't mean free from all risks. Safe means that the balance, the value you get from it, outweighs the disbenefits.

Gaye Francis (04:01):

That's correct. And I think by encouraging that risk appetite model and being risk adverse, or not getting responses back that are not risk adverse, it's sort of missing that aspect. And it was sort of evident when we did the course for Engineers Australia chartered assessors and their view on things was only between 1% and 3% of engineers interviewed as part of chartered status and risk is a component of that, understood that the WHS or Work Health and Safety legislation was actually relevant to their job.

Richard Robinson (04:45):

Because as we were just sort of commenting, I mean people keep talking about risk assessments. What the legislation demands is risk design assessments and that you've been diligent in the design options. It doesn't mean free from all risk. It just means in the circumstances you've demonstrated diligently that every reasonable practical control is in place.

Gaye Francis (05:03):

So I think the innovation comes in, first of all, you've got to understand what your problem is, and often the innovation is in the solution to that problem.

Richard Robinson (05:11):

Correct.

Gaye Francis (05:12):

And so there's this balance then to work it up about, well, what are the benefits that you get? But you can't do it if safety is compromised.

Richard Robinson (05:23):

Correct.

Gaye Francis (05:23):

If it's prohibitively dangerous, that solution or innovation cannot be implemented.

Richard Robinson (05:28):

That's correct. Until you figure out away around that prohibitively dangerous aspect, which may well require innovation in itself. I mean it's like necessity is the heart of innovation and things like that. I mean, it's a bit like watching the Ukrainians fighting a war. They have been innovated because they had no choice. And if you talk about risk assessments and things like that, innovation, overcoming the problems, well, they've got a lot of problems and then...

Gaye Francis (05:53):

They're trying to work out which are the best options to go for.

Richard Robinson (05:55):

And they're working on the same option with regard to the US politics at the moment, which has got enormously complicated.

Gaye Francis (06:00):

Just bringing it back to an engineering example. And you've seen innovation over time. You think about 30 years ago, 50 years ago, in underground mining, somebody had to go out underground, let off the charge when they were pretty close.

Richard Robinson (06:17):

They'd drill holes, charge the holes, fire the holes, muck it out and do it all again. The Air League miner. Never saw a plump air league miner in my life.

Gaye Francis (06:25):

And then technology progressed that the charges could be filled and everything and then let off above the site. And now it's all done remotely, is my understanding. At an operation center remote from the mine location. That's technology that's overcome some of these safety issues.

Richard Robinson (06:48):

It's like the personal pilotage unit for marine pilots, which trains could consider. It's like the low voltage power ethernet and LED lightings and roof spaces, which we've talked about. These are all innovations which will save lives. They're good ways to do things and, I imagine, are faster, cheaper, and more economic too.

Gaye Francis (07:10):

So it's not that R2A and Richard and I are saying don't do some of this innovation stuff, but you can't encourage this as the only way to do risk management.

Richard Robinson (07:22):

Correct.

Gaye Francis (07:23):

I think some of the discussions that Engineers Australia, and even in the title of their conference for 2025: Turning Risk into Opportunities. Now, you can't turn all risk into opportunities if you understand all the different risk types.

Richard Robinson (07:40):

But that doesn't mean to say when you look at it, you won't consider all the options and test, which in the circumstances makes the most sense. And I think that's where we get a bit frustrated, is that by making an all opportunity and in effect saying that anybody sort of into safety risk is just an obstruction that doesn't make sense. It just doesn't make sense. You have to consider all those aspects.

Gaye Francis (08:01):

It's a non-negotiable, safety. And we see it being pushed down, pushed down, pushed down. And sometimes some of the solutions that are put in place are to the detriment, safety detriment, of other people.

Richard Robinson (08:15):

Correct. And well, that's the court case I'm actually involved at the moment, which we perhaps won't talk too much about, but the question of the neighbourly exposure to the hazards, it's good for the business, but not necessarily good for everybody else.

Gaye Francis (08:29):

So when you're considering safety, not only do you have to consider your own workers, but you have to consider the other people that are affected by it. And I think that's where Richard and I come from the majority of the time.

Richard Robinson (08:44):

Yep. Well, we could go back and redescribe this again, I guess, but I think the key point is it's this multidimensional thing. Don't just choose one technique because if you do, and particularly ignore the WHS legislation requirements, you're going to set yourself up for a pretty serious fall.

Gaye Francis (09:00):

Or other people up for a fall as well. So yeah, don't not consider the innovation and the benefits of risk and opportunity, but forefront should be safety and the consideration of that.

(09:17):

So thanks for joining us today, short and sweet today, but thank you. And I feel better now. Thanks, Richard.

Richard Robinson (09:23):

A pleasure Gaye.