How organisational silos impact due diligence across safety, projects and compliance
In this episode of Risk! Engineers Talk Governance, due diligence engineers Richard Robinson and Gaye Francis tackle the growing problem of organisational silos and their impact on due diligence and explore how siloed thinking undermines efforts across various domains—from safety, projects and regulatory compliance.Drawing from decades of industry experience, Richard traces the evolution of risk engineering. They then discuss the need for integrating expertise across the entire organisation to achieve genuinely diligent solutions that satisfy all stakeholders.Through real-world examples including waterfront safety designs in New Zealand and the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, they demonstrate how breaking down silos leads to better outcomes. They also emphasise that while the R2A due diligence process isn't "rocket science," it requires structured thinking and inclusive facilitation to bring disparate perspectives together.This episode refers to their previous discussion about being "relevant, reasoned and concise" (S5 Ep7), offering practical insights on how organisations can overcome the silo mentality to demonstrate due diligence across all operations. For further information on Richard and Gaye’s consulting work with R2A, head to https://www.r2a.com.au.Gaye is also founder of women’s safety workwear company Apto PPE if you’d like to check out the garments at https://www.aptoppe.com.au
--------
9:57
Being Relevant, Reasoned & Concise - for your Due Diligence Argument
In this episode of Risk! Engineers Talk Governance, due diligence engineers Richard Robinson and Gaye Francis discuss why effective due diligence arguments need to be relevant, reasoned, and concise. They share their frustrations with overly complex safety documentation that fails to deliver clear, defensible arguments, and explain why safety cases should be brief yet comprehensive enough to stand up to legal scrutiny. Drawing from their extensive experience as expert witnesses and consultants, they offer practical advice on creating effective safety documentation that not only satisfies the courts and makes sense to lawyers and Boards, but actually improves safety outcomes at optimal cost.The episode starts with them explaining (following a question from their producer) how safety approaches shifted from target-based risk assessments to the SFAIRP (So Far As Is Reasonably Practicable) principles with the OHS Act in Victoria, and why it was necessary. For further information on Richard and Gaye’s consulting work with R2A, head to https://www.r2a.com.au.Gaye is also founder of women’s safety workwear company Apto PPE if you’d like to check out the garments at https://www.aptoppe.com.au
--------
11:38
Target Levels of Risk & Safety - SFAIRP vs ALARP Revisited
In this episode, of Risk! Engineers Talk Governance, due diligence engineers Richard Robinson and Gaye Francis revisit the distinction between SFAIRP (So Far As Is Reasonably Practicable) and Target Levels of Risk and Safety. They explain how target levels of risk continue to be problematic in engineering despite being legally unsupportable under WHS/OHS legislation and share examples of regulators and engineers still using outdated approaches and discuss why this confusion persists, pointing to issues with Standards and educational institutions that continue teaching these methods.They clarify that SFAIRP asks "Are all reasonable practical precautions in place?" while target based approaches rely solely on calculated risk levels. Through real-world examples including expert witness cases and engineering consultations, they demonstrate how the SFAIRP approach leads to better safety outcomes and alignment between stakeholders and warn engineers and organisations still using target levels of risk for safety issues. This conversation follows their original discussion in Season 1 Episode 1: SFAIRP vs ALARP (listen at https://www.buzzsprout.com/admin/2180928/episodes/13021822-sfairp-vs-alarp-risk-engineers-talk-governance-podcast) While the table they refer to is available in their Criminal Manslaughter – How Not To Do It booklet, available online at https://www.r2a.com.au/store/p/r2a-criminal-manslaughter-directors-booklet Richard and Gaye also run public and in-house workshops on the topic. For further information on Richard and Gaye’s consulting work with R2A, head to https://www.r2a.com.au.Gaye is also founder of women’s safety workwear company Apto PPE if you’d like to check out the garments at https://www.aptoppe.com.au
--------
13:31
Why Standards are not the Solution
In this episode of Risk! Engineers Talk Governance, due diligence engineering experts Richard Robinson and Gaye Francis discuss why Standards are not the solution. They explore why following Standards can be problematic, outlining key issues: 1. Using Standards out of context;2. There’s no explanation for rationales;3. They don’t cover all things; and4. They are often lagging indicators.They share a number of examples within SIL, AS1940 and AS61508 that demonstrate the issues if you do blindly follow the Standard. The episode concludes with their answer to an often asked question: If you don't design to Standards, how do Engineers design? The text they mention is Engineering Due Diligence (Concepts, Applications, Tools & Techniques) that can be purchased online at https://www.r2a.com.au/store/p/r2a-engineering-due-diligence-textbook For further information on Richard and Gaye’s consulting work with R2A, head to https://www.r2a.com.au.Gaye is also founder of women’s safety workwear company Apto PPE if you’d like to check out the garments at https://www.aptoppe.com.au
--------
16:14
Insurance Criteria: Its history, relevance, and the Highly Protected Risk (HPR) engineering process
In this episode of "Risk! Engineers Talk Governance," due diligence engineers Richard Robinson and Gaye Francis discuss Insurance Criteria and its history and modern relevance, particularly focusing on the Highly Protected Risk (HPR) engineering process.Richard shares his experience training with Factory Mutual in the US and explains how the HPR approach originated in the 1840s with Zacharia Allen, a cotton mill owner who re-engineered his facility to minimise fire risks. When his insurance company refused to offer discounts for these improvements, Allen created a mutual pool with other safety-conscious factory owners, establishing an engineering-based approach to insurance rather than a purely financial one.The conversation explores key concepts like Normal Loss Expectancy versus Maximum Foreseeable Loss, highlights common design flaws in Australian Standards, and emphasises that engineers must think beyond merely following standards to truly understand what they're trying to protect. The episode concludes with takeaways about designing for specific needs rather than blindly applying Standards.This conversation follows the R2A text Engineer Due Diligence (Concepts, Applications, Tools & Techniques) that can be purchased online at https://www.r2a.com.au/store/p/r2a-engineering-due-diligence-textbook. For further information on Richard and Gaye’s consulting work with R2A, head to https://www.r2a.com.au. Gaye is also founder of women’s safety workwear company Apto PPE if you’d like to check out the garments at https://www.aptoppe.com.au
Due Diligence and Risk Engineers Richard Robinson and Gaye Francis discuss governance in an engineering context.Richard & Gaye are co-directors at R2A and have seen the risk business industry become very complex. The OHS/WHS 'business', in particular, has turned into an industry, that appears to be costing an awful lot of organisations an awful lot of money for very little result. Richard & Gaye's point of difference is that they come from the Common Law viewpoint of what would be expected to be done in the event that something happens. Which is very, very different from just applying the risk management standard (for example). They combine common law and risk management to come to a due diligence process to make organisations look at what their risk issues are and, more importantly, what they have to have in place to manage these things.Due diligence is a governance exercise. You can't always be right, but what the courts demand of you is that you're always diligent
México