Concern is growing about the impact on technological innovations and developments as society becomes more risk averse and tending towards legal redress. Now, for the first time, the societal, individual and practical dimensions of the engineering process have been viewed together in terms of risk.

In an innovative collaboration by leading social scientists and engineers the UK's Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE) has issued a series of reports on risk.
Most commentators see society as becoming increasingly risk averse and tending to blame and seek legal redress whenever an event or procedure fails to match their expectations. The RAE is concerned at the impact these trends can have on technological innovations and development.
In what is believed to be an industry first, the reports address societal, individual and practical dimensions of the engineering process in terms of risk. They make recommendations on reduction or clarification of risks using methods not normally associated with engineering processes and products. These include involving society in the engineering process, designing improvements in the way workers at the 'coalface' do their jobs by reducing monotony and simplicity - a major creator of risky situations and accidents - and incorporating risk management policies in all aspects of the engineering process.
Nigel Gilbert, pro vice-chancellor and professor of sociology at the University of Surrey, was chairman of one of the groups: "If risky issues are not to blow up in our faces, engineers need to learn how to enter into a dialogue with the public and earn their trust. The conventional separation between the 'technical' issues and social, political, and economic issues cannot be sustained. Engineers must engage in the wider political environment if they are to fulfil their role."
The reports have been put together by three working groups made up of RAE members, social scientists and journalists. They considered the following issues: societal aspects of risk, humans in the control loop, and common methodologies for risk assessment and management.
This document summarises current thinking, informed by both engineering best practice and social science research. It says that engineers need to understand how groups in society develop perceptions about the riskiness of engineering projects and processes, and what these perceptions depend on. The perceptions will generally be quite different from assessments made according to traditional engineering methodologies. It is recommended that the following guidelines should be considered in all engineering activities:
m At an early stage, identify the interest groups that might have a stake in the project.
m Define the boundaries of the system under consideration and ensure that decisions about the appropriate boundaries are understood and accepted by interest groups.
m Aim to quantify the risks with as much precision as is possible and relevant to the issue.
m Do not attribute a greater degree of precision to risk assessment than it deserves.
m Recognise the social, political and economic implications in a risk assessment and acknowledge them publicly.
m Stimulate public debate on the perceived risks and benefits.
m Establish a consultation and feedback process about risks with stakeholders, including the public and local community.

Humans in the control loop

This group's objective was to understand the impact of human involvement in the 'control loop' and to identify good practices that should be shared across different industrial and service sectors (Table 1).
Its analysis identified four key themes that emerged when considering the differences between sectors: system design and operator control as sources of error; reporting feedback loops and organisational learning; licensing and training personnel and checks of competency; varying levels of automation within the industry.
The working group considers it essential that these be addressed by those responsible for the design and operation of complex systems that utilise human controllers in combination with automatic control.
A wide difference was also found between different industrial sectors and professions in their approach to integrating the 'human operative' into the control loop. "Although explicable in terms of history and tradition they do raise significant concerns," notes the report.
Little evidence was found of extensive concerted exchange of experience and best practice across the various sectors, representing a major lost opportunity to improve performance, reliability and safety.

Common methodologies

It was also found that, in general terms, increasing automation can devalue the status of the human controller and make him/her ever more remote from the detailed knowledge and 'feel' for the system that is essential if deviations from 'normal' are to be recognised and interventions are to be effective.
At the strategic and organisation level there was found to be a need for clarity of aims and objectives to be translated into terms relevant to the controller at the 'sharp end'.
At the management level there has got to be an honest and rigorous examination of the design of the control operative's job.
At the workface, be it a cockpit, a nuclear power station control room or an operating theatre, systems have to be provided that make the operatives' repetitive and routine tasks meaningful and robust. In very general terms a well-designed system would be one in which all of the routine would be automated and the operative would only do the tasks requiring creativity, intuition and experience.
The working group proposed that a major seminar be organised to test the validity of its conclusions across a wider group of engineering professionals. If there is general agreement, it called for consideration to be given to mechanisms for information and experience exchange across relevant industries and sectors.
This working group considered risk management in terms of the processes that should apply across all engineering disciplines, those in the wider context of the processes employed in client businesses and public organisations, and those demanded by the wider community of stakeholders including government, investors and society at large. Significant changes through innovation provide major opportunities to an enterprise. For this reason the group says it is important that the associated uncertainty is viewed and addressed positively.
Boards need to address all aspects of uncertainty in a proactive manner. Different levels within the hierarchy of an enterprise have to address different degrees of uncertainty and perceptions must be shared with other levels (Fig.1).
Serious consideration should be given to co-opting independent minds to participate in formal risk management reviews. Every enterprise should have a written statement of its risk policy supported by a set of 'risk management principles' endorsed by the board and reviewed annually.

The report emphasises the power of systems thinking. Many risk management methodologies and processes derive from engineering project management. Risk assessment and management are not add-ons but must be embedded in ongoing operations and continuously employed.
This continuous process is based on an overall framework of four stages: risk identification, assessment, management and feedback.
The report presents a generic process for engineering risk management. It is believed to summarise current best practice. Boards and senior executives must ensure that engineering risk management is set within the context of the policy and principles of the enterprise and that individuals within the enterprise understand the nature and degree of risk that are appropriate. The report emphasises the need for sensitivity to the possible distortions and to be prepared to test evaluations against those made by others both internal and external to the project.
"Risk is a necessary corollary of innovation. All enterprises must learn to manage risk positively if they are to be competitive and succeed", noted John Turnbull, formerly of BP and an RAE member. "As engineers we can be proud of the way in which we have provided safer, more reliable and beneficial products. Paradoxically, it is this success that has not just raised standards of living, but has also raised the public's expectations."