Within the risk assessment process, various techniques can be utilized to carry out each step.
Several factors influence the selection of appropriate risk assessment techniques, such as available data and resources, the timeline of the assessment, the objectives of the risk assessment and requirements to satisfy them, the required level of expertise, and the degree of the problem’s complexity (IEC/ISO, 2009).
In the following sections, information about the risk assessment techniques used to carry out this research is presented. Since the available data regarding the fire at Remiks waste facility was limited, there was a need to utilize experts’ opinions to conduct the analysis. Therefore, those risk assessment techniques that could be utilized to collect the experts’ opinions in a time-efficient manner were selected for this research study.
25 2.5.1 Root cause analysis
The Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is a technique to analyze a significant loss that has occurred in the organization due to different sorts of failures and utilize the results to avoid reoccurring the loss. The purpose of this technique is to point out the root causes rather than removing the existing symptoms. This technique can be utilized in a wide range of contexts, such as safety-based RCA, System-safety-based RCA, Production-safety-based RCA, and process-safety-based RCA (Andersen and Fagerhaug, 2006; IEC/ISO, 2009).
To carry out the RCA, a group of experts who have the required knowledge about the occurred loss should be selected to analyze the loss and provide recommendations. The RCA can be executed by using different methods, but the following steps are similar in all the methods (Andersen and Fagerhaug, 2006):
Setting up a group of experts
Defining the objectives and scope of the RCA
Understanding the problem
Collecting data and evidence regarding the loss
Identifying the root causes through conducting a structured analysis
Providing solutions and developing recommendations
Implementing the solutions and recommendation
Testing the effectiveness of the implemented solutions
Various techniques can be used to carry out the structured analysis, such as the “5 Whys”
technique, Fishbone or Ishikawa diagrams, fault tree analysis, Pareto analysis, and failure mode and effects analysis. The RCA involves the people who are working in a team, and it considers all the potential hypotheses. Yet, there might not always be enough time and resources to execute RCA, and it might not be possible to implement a sufficient number of recommendations. (Andersen and Fagerhaug, 2006; IEC/ISO, 2009).
2.5.2 Cause-and-effect analysis
The cause-and-effect analysis is a procedure to point out potential causes of a problem or an unwanted event. This technique classifies the causal factors into wider categories, and by this, it considers all probable hypotheses. This technique can be used together with RCA to identify the root causes of a problem. For organizing the information in the cause-and-effect technique, the Fishbone (Ishikawa) or a tree diagram can be utilized. The structure of the Fishbone/
26
Ishikawa diagram is similar to the fish skeleton. The effect is placed in the head of the fish, and the causal factors are classified into main categories represented by the backbones of the fish.
The branches and sub-branches illustrate the secondary or more detailed causes in each category. Figure 16 shows an example of a Fishbone diagram (IEC/ISO, 2009).
Figure 16 - An example of a Fishbone diagram (IEC/ISO, 2009).
The basic steps to carry out a cause-and-effect analysis are (IEC/ISO 2009):
Identify the effect that should be analyzed
Specify the main categories of causes
Write down the potential causes in related categories
Review the diagram to make sure that all of the causes lead to the effect
Point out the most probable causes according to the views of the participants
The results of this analysis should be tested and verified before proposing any recommendations (IEC/ISO, 2009).
2.5.3 Brainstorming
Brainstorming sessions are conducted among a group of people who have enough knowledge about the topic of the discussion, organization, process, and system. The purpose of brainstorming is to identify risks, criteria for decision-making, potential failure modes, and risk treatment alternatives by encouraging participants to a free-flowing conversation. The facilitation of the session influences the effectiveness of this technique. Brainstorming facilitation includes encouraging the discussion at its start, directing the group of participants toward other relevant aspects periodically, and catch the issues that might arise during the discussion (IEC/ISO, 2009).
27
Brainstorming can be utilized along with other risk assessment techniques. It can be conducted at any stage of the risk assessment process to stimulate creative thinking among those involved.
It can be used for developing a more detailed review for high-level discussions where the main issues are pointed out. It also can be utilized at a detailed stage for solving a specific problem.
Brainstorming can be carried out both formally and informally. While formal brainstorming follows a clear structure, informal brainstorming is considered less structured and unprepared.
In the formal brainstorming, the participants usually get information about the purpose and outcome of the sessions, and they prepare for the discussion in advance. The facilitator at formal brainstorming prepares appropriate plans to prompt the thinking pattern of the participants and direct them toward the context. Further, the rules and objectives of the session are defined and explained to the participants. Next, the facilitator kicks off the session by providing a train of thoughts, and all participants point out as many issues they can come up with. At this point, there should not be any discussion about whether the ideas mentioned should be listed or not, and none of them should be criticized. This session is considered as a free-flowing process, and all the inputs are accepted (IEC/ISO, 2009).
The brainstorming technique has some strengths and limitations. One of the strengths of this technique is that it encourages imaginative thinking, which might result in novel solutions, or it might contribute to identify new risks. Further, it is pretty easy and quick to set up the session, and it improves the communication between the organization and stakeholders. However, the effectiveness of the brainstorming is highly dependent on the knowledge and skill level of the participants. Moreover, some participants with novel ideas might not get the chance to share their opinion if others are dominating the discussion (IEC/ISO, 2009).
2.5.4 Structured or semi-structured interviews
In the structured interview, a set of questions are asked from the interviewees individually. The questions are prepared in a way to direct the participants toward considering the situation from a different view and point out the risks from that point of view. The semi-structured interview gives the interviewees the chance to express their opinions through a conversation. The interview (both structured and semi-structured) technique can be applied when gathering all the experts at the same time is difficult or in situations where having a free-flowing discussion is not a viable option. This technique can be used at any stage of the process to provide appropriate inputs. The questions should be clear and straightforward, and if possible open-ended.
28
Additionally, follow-up questions can be asked wherever clarification is needed (IEC/ISO, 2009).
2.5.5 Delphi
The Delphi technique is a reliable method for getting agreement on a specific topic from a group of experts. This technique is widely utilized to describe any sort of brainstorming. However, its original formulation is that each participant can share their opinion anonymously and at the same time get information about other participants’ views along the process. The Delphi technique can be used at any stage across the risk management process where an agreement of opinions from experts is required (IEC/ISO, 2009).
To conduct the Delphi method, a semi-structured questionnaire should be asked from the experts, and they should respond to the questionnaire individually without meeting the other participants. Then, the results of the first round questionnaire should be analyzed and combined, and the second round questionnaire should be sent out to the participants individually. This procedure continues until agreement from the experts is obtained (IEC/ISO, 2009).
The Delphi method is a rather time-consuming procedure, and it requires the experts to express their views clearly. Nevertheless, it gives the participants the chance to share their opinions freely, and it can be carried out without having the participants physically available in one place (IEC/ISO, 2009).
29
3 Methodology
In this chapter, the methods used to carry out this research have been explained. Further, an overview of the methodology, as well as the research procedure, is presented.