Engineering As Law

Richard RobinsonConsulting, Due Diligence, Professional Development, Risk Management, Risk Management Process

Both law and engineering are practical rather than theoretical activities in the sense that their ultimate purpose is to change the state of the world rather than to merely understand it. The lawyers focus on social change whilst the engineers focus on physical change. It is the power to cause change that creates the ethical concerns. Knowing does not have … Read More

How did it get to this? Project risk versus company liability

Tim ProcterDue Diligence, Engineering Consultants, Risk Management, Risk Management Process

Disclosure: Tim Procter worked in Arup’s Melbourne office from 2008 until 2016. Shortly after Christmas a number of media outlets reported that tier one engineering consulting firm Arup had settled a major court case related to traffic forecasting services they provided for planning Brisbane’s Airport Link tunnel tollway. The Airport Link consortium sued Arup in 2014, when traffic volumes seven … Read More

2013 R2A Industry Overview and Outlook

Richard RobinsonRisk Management Process

To kick off 2013, R2A launched its 9th edition text and Richard Robinson gave an overview presentation of Risk Management and Due Diligence for 2013.

Clients and colleagues of R2A warmly received the private event and the atmosphere in the room was very positive.

Risk Management Standard – AS/NZS ISO 31000

Gaye FrancisRisk Management Process

Thoughts on AS/NZS ISO 31000

In Australia, we are currently undergoing a paradigm shift in the way safety risk management is conducted. The new Work Health & Safety Act is replacing the old approach typified by the standard, AS/NZS ISO 31000.  

We have heard conversation in the Engineering community that the move away from AS/NZS ISO 31000 doesn’t necessarily it present a better way forward and the standard can in fact demonstrate safety due diligence.  R2A does not share this view.

The key issue arises from the use of the notion of target (tolerable or acceptable) levels of risk.  The standard is quite specific in the definitions and process explanations: