Safety is my number one priority however, there’s also no point designing something if it doesn’t work! As such I often carry out a risk assessment. So having decided on a particular design I then assess how safe it is by looking at the risk associated.
For me this could be a design that requires people to carry out welding at height. This is particularly dangerous and so I try to avoid doing this. As such having identified the risk, I then look at ways to reduce or remove the risk. So, instead of having welded joints I could look at having bolts instead as this removes the need for bolts.
My design process is all about how to keep things safe while maintaining function.
Great question! Safety must always be top of the agenda – but as Philippa pointed out, if something isn’t going to perform its function (or be profitable) then there is usually little motivation to do it.
There is a concept in safety engineering called ALARP (as low as reasonably practicable). This makes the owner make a judgement between the RISK on one hand, and the SACRIFICE on the other hand. The risk must be reduced to a level where any further reduction in risk has a “grossly disproportionate” impact on the sacrifice (which in this case could be the product/concept function).
The owner must always prove that the risks have been made ALARP. Part of this process may be following recognised codes and standards, and performing analysis.
Comments