OHSE3740 Risk Assessment and Management : Mitigation Actions
Answer:
Introduction
This report specifically addresses each risk as identified in prior risk register along with the treated risks. The risks are treated using proper mitigation approach and using analysis process of the risks. The identified risks are analyzed using risk assessment procedures and critical success factors are identified as well (Luko, 2013; Verbano & Venturini, 2013). Analysis process is conducted as per likelihood and severity identification for individual risk and major findings are included for mitigation actions. The responsible personnel and authority are advised to follow this document to properly address the risks as in practice (Card, Ward & Clarkson, 2014). The assessment matrix helps the authority to pinpoint the risks as in utilization of treatment planning with impacts on how the risks are to be mitigated.
Analysis and Treatment Approach
As per the standard ISO 31000:2009 risk management approach, following diagram depicts the framework on which the risk management is to be conducted. In this framework, major steps are identified as establishing the context, risk identification, risk analysis, risk evaluation, communication and consultation, and monitoring and reviewing (Diedrich & Cormier, 2013). In this framework, risk assessment process includes thr
ee systematic steps as risk identification, analysis, and evaluation.
According to the ISO 31000:2009 risk management framework, the risk analysis and treatment plan is prepared for the project “Capital Works Construction Project: Long Term Management of Australia’s Radioactive Waste”. The framework is shown as underneath:
In risk analysis stage, the risks are analyzed using a specific approach that may incorporate the assessment based on scoring or scenario. The risk analysis in this project report is conducted using risk assessment matrix with likelihood-severity scoring (Fito & Guitart, 2014). Primarily, as the context is prepared as in determining the scope of the risk as in external, internal, process-related and criteria based. Furthermore, the risk identification was conducted. As per risk identification and impact identification, following table shows the major risks.
|
Risks |
Impacts on project |
|
Long-term Risk: No establishment of long-term solution for radioactive waste management; poses as major risk. |
Australian nuclear industry is forced to cease operations |
|
Risk in Approach: BAU is expensive yet inefficient approach that can pose as risk to nuclear science operations and production activities in Australia. |
This approach is poorly suited for discovery of radioactive wastes. |
|
Industrial Risk: Significant industrial and ongoing project's scientific value in Australia can face major risk without ad-hoc activities. |
Impact is found on gathering potential benefits from proposed solution. |
|
Operational Risk: Deficit of consolidated storage besides from Queensland stands as operational risk |
State regulators could not achieve uniform design and operational standards |
|
Health Risk: Exposure to radioactivity is a major and increased health risk. |
The neighborhood community will be affected from the radioactive wastes. |
|
International Risk: International risks associated for management of nuclear and radioactive waste. |
Risks have impact on safety over waste management and providing defenses against these wastes. |
|
Personal Risk: Personal risk management interests and policies. |
Impact is identified in consideration of project assumptions. |
|
Technical Risk: Technical risk such as operation of NRWMF is lower |
Impact is found on delivering proposed solution with all aspects considered. |
|
Unacceptable Risk: Unacceptable risks during project delivery and operational phase. |
Impact stands in delivered solution quality. |
|
Financial Risk: Without regulatory conditions, the financial risk may arise. |
The growth of Australian nuclear industry may be put into risk. |
Table 2: Identified Risks and Individual Impacts
(Source: Dallas & Director, 2013, pp. 579)
After identifying the risks along with impacts on the ongoing project, the risk analysis is conducted with setting likelihood and severity. The assessment of risk is conducted as per the assessment matrix format provided underneath:
|
Likelihood / Severity |
Insignificant (1) |
Minor (2) |
Moderate (3) |
Major (4) |
Catastrophic (5) |
|
Almost Certain (5) |
Moderate (5) |
High (10) |
High (15) |
Catastrophic (20) |
Catastrophic (25) |
|
Likely (4) |
Moderate (4) |
Moderate (8) |
High (12) |
Catastrophic (16) |
Catastrophic (20) |
|
Possible (3) |
Low (3) |
Moderate (6) |
Moderate (9) |
High (12) |
High (15) |
|
Unlikely (2) |
Low (2) |
Moderate (4) |
Moderate (6) |
Moderate (8) |
High (10) |
|
Rare (1) |
Low (1) |
Low (2) |
Low (3) |
Moderate (4) |
Moderate (5) |
Table 3: Risk Assessment Matrix
(Source: Badurdeen et al., 2014, pp. 651)
Now, as per risk assessment matrix, the risk likelihood and severity is included. Furthermore, the risk scoring is performed in the format as following:
|
Likelihood / Severity |
Insignificant (1) |
Minor (2) |
Moderate (3) |
Major (4) |
Catastrophic (5) |
|
Almost Certain (5) |
|
|
Risk in Approach (R2) |
|
|
|
Likely (4) |
|
|
Industrial Risk (R3), Financial Risk (R10) |
Long-term Risk (R1), Technical Risk (R8) |
Health Risk (R5) |
|
Possible (3) |
|
|
Personal Risk (R7) |
|
|
|
Unlikely (2) |
|
Operational Risk (R4) |
International Risk (R6), Unacceptable Risk (R9) |
|
|
|
Rare (1) |
|
|
|
|
|
Table 4: Risks with Scoring and Assessment
(Source: Jia et al., 2013, pp. 63)
Risk Treatment
As per the scoring and risk assessment process, the treatment of risk is performed. The treatment of the risk identifies major mitigation approach and activities for eliminating the risks. In this manner, the treatment process includes reduction of risk occurrence and risk mitigation is performed (Dunn et al., 2014). The treatment process is conducted as per constant monitoring, reviewing, and communication with stakeholders. The treatment process is shown in the following table.
|
Id |
Description of Risk |
Mitigation Actions |
Status |
|
R1 |
Long-term Risk: No establishment of long-term solution for radioactive waste management; poses as major risk. |
The conducting authority will need strict regulations and rules for stifling further development. |
Closed |
|
R2 |
Risk in Approach: BAU is expensive yet inefficient approach that can pose as risk to nuclear science operations and production activities in Australia. |
Authority should incorporate new approach rather than utilizing BAU. |
Closed |
|
R3 |
Industrial Risk: Significant industrial and ongoing project's scientific value in Australia can face major risk without ad-hoc activities. |
Ad-hoc activities should be implemented for nuclear science project of Australia. |
Open |
|
R4 |
Operational Risk: Deficit of consolidated storage besides from Qld stands as operational risk |
The state should operate regulatory framework for license to work, use, and operate. |
Closed |
|
R5 |
Health Risk: Exposure to radioactivity is a major and increased health risk. |
CEO needs to consider operational safety for granting licenses. |
Open |
|
R6 |
International Risk: International risks associated for management of nuclear and radioactive waste. |
Broad adoption of joint convention can reduce this particular risk. |
Closed |
|
R7 |
Personal Risk: Personal risk management interests and policies. |
Commonwealth and States and Territories will participate for coordinated and national responses for long-term radioactive waste management |
Closed |
|
R8 |
Technical Risk: Technical risk such as operation of NRWMF is lower |
Risk can be based on several years' overseas experience with LLW disposal and ILW storage and successful operations at ANSTO. |
Open |
|
R9 |
Unacceptable Risk: Unacceptable risks during project delivery and operational phase. |
Proposed solution should be able to mitigate the unacceptable risks. |
Open |
|
R10 |
Financial Risk: Without regulatory conditions, the financial risk may arise. |
The regulator will cease future development licenses and continued operations. |
Open |
Table 5: Risk Treatment and Mitigation Actions
(Source: Firoiu, 2015, pp. 93)
Conclusion
Once, the risk assessment and treatment plan is conducted; the organization can easily put forward their effort to reducing the risks in approach of sustainability. In appropriate manner, the risks are to be mitigated with identification, assessment, and mitigation. The risk mitigation process is effective along with ISO 31000:2009 standard so that risks can be easily avoided and their occurrence can be reduced. Risk management plan is completed in this document along with seeking approval for risk treatment. Moreover, the risk mitigation is based evaluation process of scoring and assessed outcomes. The stated outcomes and results are presented in this report for detailed discussion.
References
Ariff, M. S. B. M., Zakuan, N., Tajudin, M. N. M., Ahmad, A., Ishak, N., & Ismail, K. (2014). A framework for risk management practices and organizational performance in higher education. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, 3(2), 422.
Badurdeen, F., Shuaib, M., Wijekoon, K., Brown, A., Faulkner, W., Amundson, J., ... & Boden, B. (2014). Quantitative modeling and analysis of supply chain risks using Bayesian theory. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 25(5), 631-654.
Card, A. J., Ward, J. R., & Clarkson, P. J. (2014). Rebalancing risk management—part 1: the Process for Active Risk Control (PARC). Journal of Healthcare Risk Management, 34(2), 21-30.
Dallas, M., & Director, A. P. M. (2013). Management of Risk: Guidance for Practitioners and the international standard on risk management, ISO 31000: 2009. The Stationary Office.
Diedrich, A., & Cormier, R. (2013). Marine and coastal ecosystem-based risk management handbook (p. 60). R. Cormier (Ed.). Copenhagen: International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.
Dunn, G., Harris, L., Cook, C., & Prystajecky, N. (2014). A comparative analysis of current microbial water quality risk assessment and management practices in British Columbia and Ontario, Canada. Science of the Total Environment, 468, 544-552.
Fadun, O. S. (2013). Promoting ‘Enterprise Risk Management’adoption in business enterprises: Implications and challenges. International Journal of Business and Management Invention, 2(1), 69-78.
Firoiu, M. (2015). General Considerations on Risk Management and Information System Security Assessment According to ISO/IEC 27005: 2011 and ISO 31000: 2009 Standards. Calitatea, 16(149), 93.
Fitó, J. O., & Guitart, J. (2014). Business-driven management of infrastructure-level risks in Cloud providers. Future Generation computer systems, 32, 41-53.
Ibáñez, A. J. P., Bernal, J. M. M., de Diego, M. J. C., & Sánchez, F. J. A. (2016). Expert system for predicting buildings service life under ISO 31000 standard. Application in architectural heritage. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 18, 209-218.
Islam, S., Mouratidis, H., & Weippl, E. R. (2014). An empirical study on the implementation and evaluation of a goal-driven software development risk management model. Information and Software Technology, 56(2), 117-133.
Jereb, B., Ivanusa, T., & Rosi, B. (2013). Systemic thinking and requisite holism in mastering logistics risks: the model for identifying risks in organisations and supply chain. Amfiteatru economic, 15(33), 56.
Jia, G., Ni, X., Chen, Z., Hong, B., Chen, Y., Yang, F., & Lin, C. (2013). Measuring the maturity of risk management in large-scale construction projects. Automation in Construction, 34, 56-66.
Jondle, D., Maines, T. D., Burke, M. R., & Young, P. (2013). Modern risk management through the lens of the ethical organizational culture. Risk Management, 15(1), 32-49.
Kirsch, P., Harris, J., & Sprott, D. (2013). Vertical integration of risk management in the Hunter Valley Coal Chain-application of the coal industry's RISKGATE platform. AusIMM Bulletin, (1), 45.
Landquist, H., Hassellöv, I. M., Rosén, L., Lindgren, J. F., & Dahllöf, I. (2013). Evaluating the needs of risk assessment methods of potentially polluting shipwrecks. Journal of environmental management, 119, 85-92.
Luko, S. N. (2013). Risk management principles and guidelines. Quality Engineering, 25(4), 451-454.
Luko, S. N. (2014). Risk assessment techniques. Quality Engineering, 26(3), 379-382.
Neves, A. A. S., Pinardi, N., Martins, F., Janeiro, J., Samaras, A., Zodiatis, G., & De Dominicis, M. (2015). Towards a common oil spill risk assessment framework–adapting ISO 31000 and addressing uncertainties. Journal of environmental management, 159, 158-168.
Scannell, T., Curkovic, S., & Wagner, B. (2013). Integration of ISO 31000: 2009 and Supply Chain Risk Management. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 3(04), 367.
Buy OHSE3740 Risk Assessment and Management : Mitigation Actions Answers Online
Talk to our expert to get the help with OHSE3740 Risk Assessment and Management : Mitigation Actions Answers to complete your assessment on time and boost your grades now
The main aim/motive of the management assignment help services is to get connect with a greater number of students, and effectively help, and support them in getting completing their assignments the students also get find this a wonderful opportunity where they could effectively learn more about their topics, as the experts also have the best team members with them in which all the members effectively support each other to get complete their diploma assignments. They complete the assessments of the students in an appropriate manner and deliver them back to the students before the due date of the assignment so that the students could timely submit this, and can score higher marks. The experts of the assignment help services at urgenthomework.com are so much skilled, capable, talented, and experienced in their field of programming homework help writing assignments, so, for this, they can effectively write the best economics assignment help services.
