Tick List into a Specific Fire Plans - Report Example

Tick list The check list is important in providing routine assessment and auditing the fire security plan in the hotel premises. Additionally, there is also preservation of the records of fire security so that there can be cross analysis and any associated concerns may be rectified. The tick list sections are framed into specific fire plan including rooms and hotel premises as a way of ensuring there is coverage of all hazard risks. Advantage The rationale for such monitoring and planning is ensuring safe conditions are provided and maintained in a hotel. Having the assessment report is of importance when the plan is to be further modified of it can be useful in for regular audit purpose. Overall, it is helpful with regard when it comes to quick inspection and regular monitoring of the fire prevention strategy. Disadvantage The tick list fails in identification of the minute details of the fire risk prevention strategy that may be responsible for dis-functioning or irregularities. It is also noticed that the list does not put focus on the record provision and regular analysis for the fire protection and safety related work practices. Below is the tick list that is requisite for the hotel fire prevention plan. Fire safety provision Yes No Is there smoke or fire detection system available? ✓ Is there system available for alerting the guest for the emergency problem? ✓ Are fire extinguishers and hose reel system available? ✓ Are the fire preventive measures are marked properly? ✓ Is there any sprinkler system available? ✓ Are there emergency doors available? ✓ Are the emergency doors equipped with panic hardware? ✓ Do the emergency door swings out? ✓ Do the emergency exit stairs go directly outside to the hotel premises ✓ Is the fire exit plan of thehotel being tested regularly? ✓ Is there fire exit training available for the hotel staff? ✓ Room System Of The Hotel Do the room locks have sufficient protection? Are they unlocking when the door handle is turned? ✓ Is there card-system available for locking the room? ✓ Is the emergency fire exit plan marked on each floor? ✓ Is the access to the fire exit plan available with all the room? ✓ Hotel Premises Is the security system available throughout the hotel premises? ✓ Is there aproper screening of bags, inflammable, and materials before the entrance of the hotel? ✓ Is there sufficient lighting across the premises? ✓ Are the electrical wiring and connections being checked properly? ✓ Is there CCTV coverage in the public area of the hotel? ✓ SWOT The first planning process involves creation of a Risk Management Plan, which involves coming up with a framework through which all other risk management process are to be fulfilled. Identification of risk which is the second step in the planning process is considered to be first step in risk management. This involves the identification of risk which are analyzed through later processes and eventually being managed through later by having appropriate responses (Creswell, 2007). Since the identification process exhibit high level of complexity, there are a number of tools and techniques that may be used in capturing many of the risks. SWOT analysis (Strength-Weakness-Opportunities-Threats)is one of the powerful tools that is used in organization in identification of risks. Opportunities vs. Threats In SWOT analysis two variables internal vs external to the organization and the variables that may have a positive vs negative impact on the company. The true definition of a risk will have implication of both positive and negative but in common usage risk will only be used to imply negative effects. Opportunity encompasses positivity and this is why it is part of SWOT analysis since the technique involve both positive and negative. Internal vs. external Threats and opportunities are taken as being events ad conditions that are have effect of the project that is to be undertaken. The threats and opportunities may have the company as being its source or they may be from the outside. Whether internal or external, the positive aspect of the organization may have the ability of neutralizing or at least to mitigate the treats that are paused to the project that is being undertaken. For example in hotel industry if we have many people who have received training in some important expertise, then we are unlikely to have the absence of one key person preventing some activity from being undertaken smoothly, due to the fact that the mother people within the expertise are likely to be available as a replacement for the absent person Weakness of the organization consists of the factors in the organization that will lead to exacerbation of risks or they may be the negative opportunities that are linked to the project that is being undertaken. This means that it is important to keep track of the external threats and opportunities which are likely to come on the way of implementation of a project as well as keep track of the internal strengths and weaknesses of the organization. This approach is helpful in making one to understand not only where the risk lies but also how o respond to risk in a more appropriate manner upon their identification Fishbone diagram The fishbone diagram is also referred to as Visual Ishikawa Risk Technique (VIRT) or simply Ishikawa diagrams. In the fishbone diagram there is visualization of the causes which then contributes coming up with a diagrammatic effect form by utilization of cause effect diagram. The idea in this tool is to have all the major causes which may have substantial effect on objective to be explored by having to split each cause to sub-causes by having the RBS drilled down. Example figure 2 gives a typical fishbone diagram that may be modified so as to be applicable in a hotel risk management strategy. An example of this kind of diagram can be found in Figure 1,1 Figure 1,1 The fishbone technique may be considered to be to be ideal for use in identifying of issues as risks. According to PMI (2009: 77) users are to be keen in distinguishing between risks and issues on other hand candidates have their focus on a number of risks and issues is the diagram and they see this as being a positive aspect of the diagram. The reason behind this that both issues and objective do have effect on objectives and thus there is need for those involved in decision making to have a reflection on both issues and risks when it comes to making their decision. Bowtie analysis The Bow Tie Analysis abbreviated as BTA was initiated by shell in 1980s as part of the tripod package of concepts and tools used to manage occupational health and safety in their business. The Top even in BTA usually will consist of a statement regarding initiation on of an event which might lead to a major consequence (Diffenbach, J., 1982). Threats which are the potential causes are discussed and there is examination of the controls which may be important in mitigation of the hazard (this being on the left side of the diagram). Then we have the consequences next, which are also referred to as potential outcomes, where there is identification initiating unwanted event and then examination of recovery control so as to ensure reduction or minimization of loss. In general the prevention controls and recovery measures which are identified will be a representation of a highly comprehensive list of actions which are needed so as to adequately take control of the hazard. More a times the actions are to be delegated to individuals and are to be controlled by management planning and monitoring tool referred to as the risk register. In a risk register there is provision of continuity with regards to how the hotel deals with risks even when changes are effected in the management. Fault / Logic Tree Analysis (FTA/LTA) and These tools involve systematic and logical developments of many contributing factors regarding some unwanted events. In FTA there is evaluation of the events that are unwanted while for evaluation of the wanted events LTA is to be used. If the tool is to be used in risk assessment the first thing is to first to gives a clear definition of the event which is then to be followed by the analysis of the main potential contributing factors. These contributing factors are to broken into discrete parts with a logic tree being used in testing the analysis by use of the AND/OR gates. The factors can he be ranked from the major to those regarded to be of less consequences. The end product of this analysis would be then a deductive list of al he potential hazards. This tool will be found to suitable in the analysis of quantitative risks there it is feasible to assign probabilities for each of the factors. Reliability block diagram A reliability block diagram abbreviated RBD and also referred to as dependency diagram (DD) involves showing how component reliability contributes towards the success or failure in a complex system by diagrammatic representation. This involves drawing of blocks which are to be connected either in series or parallel with each block representing a component of the system with associated failure rate (Ackermann, et al., 2006). Parallel path exhibit redundancy which means that there should be failure in the entire parallel path so to have the parallel network to fail. On the other hand for the case of series network any failure on the series path would translate to the whole series path failing. In some cases in drawing the RBD there may be use of switches as opposed to blocks where a closed in ON state would mean a working component while a switch that is open stands for component that has failed. If there is a through path in the network of switches from the start to end then the system will be in working condition. There can be conversion of an RBD into a success tree through replacement of the series with what is referred to as AND gates while parallel path are to be replaced with the so called OR gates. Event / Decision Tree Analysis (ETA/DTA) In operation and in system engineering decision tree is mostly use as a tool that helps in examination of the decisions being made. In event and decision tree analysis usually there will be use of graphics in the examination of the consequence of the decisions. Using a decision tree will help in identifying the hotel strategy that is likely to yield the desired outcome. In the tree structure diagram, the leaves are to represent classifications while the branches would stand in for conjunctions of the features leading to the classifications. The tools come in handy with regards to establishing lines of assurance and in the determination of the success and failure level in terms of accidents prevention. FMEA When using FMEA the aim is the determination of areas where failure might be experienced within the hardware and process systems with assessment of impacts of such failures being brought to light (Project Management Institute, 2009). The process is such that there is determination of failure mode of each of the items, then there is recognition on other items and other systems, critical ranking with the control being identified. A good example of FMEA is that provided by Robertson and Shaw (2003) who addressed risk to the environment where there was identification of the workers and public that were affected by closure of a mine. In order for this to be accomplished a FMEA work sheet was developed where the potential unwanted events post closure were addressed. Cost benefit analysis More often the cost benefit analysis finds application in governments and other organizations where the tool is used in appraising the suitability of a give policy. This tool is to be used in presenting the expected balance of costs and benefits where the alternatives that have been forgone are weighted against the status quo (Klein, 1993). CBA comes in handy when it comes to prediction of whether benefits of a policy are more than costs and to what degree when compared to other feasible alternatives, where ranking of the would be alternative policies is done through use of cost-benefit ratios. In general terms, through accuracy in cost benefit analysis there can be identification of choices that can result in an increase in welfare when a utilitarian perspective is considered. Now with assumption that there is accuracy in coming up with CBA, through change of status quo by implementation of the alternative which has the lowest cost-benefit ratio then there will be improvement in Pareto efficiency. When an analyst is to use CBA, then there should be recognition that perfect appraisal of all the current and future costs and benefits would be difficult and as much as CBA may give a well informed estimate of best alternative, no guarantee will be give when it comes efficiency in economics and social welfare. Identification of cost Identifying and quantifying cost that is linked to the proposed action would be the first step. So as to come up with all the likely costs the steps to be followed are as follows A list of the monetary costs that come with implementation of a risk management strategy is to be made . This cost may feature things like start up fee, licences, payroll expenses, training, user acceptance processes A list of non monetary cost is also to be made which could include imperfect processes, lost production on other tasks Third will involve assigning monetary values to the costs that would have been identified in the previous steps (steps one and two). As a precaution of ensuring equality across time , the monetary values are given in current value terms. The final step is the addition of the anticipated costs together so as to obtain total costs value. Benefit identification The process of identifying, notification and quantifying benefits that are anticipated as a result of having a successful implementation of proposed action follow the following steps A list of the monetary benefits that come with implementation of a risk management strategy is to be made. This benefit may feature direct profits coming from sales of products and services, investors increasing their level of investment and as a result of reduction in cost of production and an increase in the level of production of services. A list of non monetary benefits is also to be made which could include increase in level of reliability and durability, expanded customer base, increased level of customer satisfaction and improved company reputation. Third will involve assigning monetary values to the benefits that would have been identified in the previous steps (steps one and two). As a precaution of ensuring equality across time , the monetary values are given in current value terms. The final step is the addition of the anticipated costs together so as to obtain total costs value. Evaluation of costs and benefits Evaluation of the costs and benefits is the final step in creation of a CBA is the evaluation stage where there is to be determination of the worthwhileness of the risk management policies. The following steps are to be followed to accomplish this First there is to be comparison of total costs with total benefits. In the case where the costs are found to be much more than the benefits then the conclusion would be implementation of the strategy is not worthwhile for the company If it is to be found that the costs and benefits are almost equal, and then there in need for reevaluation of the costs and the benefits so that there can be revision of the cost benefit analysis. More often it is common to find that items could have been omitted or incorrectly quantified and these are usually common errors encountered in cost benefit analysis. After the first step or the second step, if it is established that total benefits are much higher than the total costs, then the conclusion would be that the proposed risk management policy is worthwhile and can be invested into. Optimum budget allocation analysis In project risk management planning, there is identification, assessment and planning of adequate responses to risk. It will then emerge that there will be a varied response plans and thus it calls for selection of the optimal response. The usual approach is first handling what is thought to be the most dangerous risk ie the risk to which maximum damage is expected. However on handling of the risk may prove to be a very expensive undertaking and could be beyond the limit of the budget that has been allocated. Through optimum budget allocation analysis the dilemma of how to select the risk risks that can be handled with the available budget is addressed. Baccarinia et al. (2001) gave a description of a methodology that can be used risk ranking of projects through use of subjective judgment, a method that has found application in construction projects as well as multiproject environment. Engert from MITRE (1999) authored a user’s manual for application in excel for solving risk management problems. This application has a method of ranking of the risk on the basis of Borda’s method. The Borda method has more quantitative characteristics in comparison to the subjective method, even though it still has some fuzzy ranking when it comes to combining the rank of risk probability with impact ranking. Ochsner (2000) has a lot of emphasis on the limited attention that is given risk-based priorities and the increasing agreements among industries that risk consideration are to be an integral part in decision making. He points out that even though money may not be always the best was of risk measurement, someone is yet to come up with better alternative. The ranking method used by Ochsner was arrived at after having discussions with experts and consultants, where we have scores ranging from 1 to 10 in each category. On the other Li et al.(2009) came up with a ranking method for multiple hazard risks, with the method being on the basis of screening of all risk by experts and the risks being weighted with consideration of frequency, severity, awareness and warning availability. References Ackermann, F., Eden, C., Williams, T. and Howick, S. (2006) ‘Systemic Risk Assessment: a case study’, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58 (1), 39-51. Bartlett, J. (2002) ‘Using Risk Concepts Maps in a Project or Programme’, paper presented at the Fifth European Project Management Conference, PMI Europe 2002, 19- 20 June Cannes France. Baccarinia D., Archerb R., 2001. The risk ranking of projects: A methodology, International Journal of Project Management, Volume 19, Issue 3, Pages 139-145. Creswell, J.W. (2007) Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd edn.) Thousand Oaks, Sage. Diffenbach, J. (1982) ‘Influence diagrams for complex strategic issues’, Strategic Management Journal, 3(2), 133-146. Engert P.A., Lansdowne Z. F. 1999. Risk Matrix User’s Guide, Version 2.2, MITRE Bedford, Massachusetts. Hopkin, P. (2012). Fundamentals of Risk Management (2nd ed.). Kogan Page. Klein J. H. 1993. Modelling Risk Trade-Off, Journal of The Operational Research Society, Vol 44, No. 5, pp. 445-460. Li H., Apostolakis G.E., Gifun J., VanSchalkwyk W., Leite S., Barber D. 2009. Ranking the Risks from Multiple Hazards in a Small Community, Risk Analysis, Vol. 29, Issue 3, pp. 438–456. Ochsner M., 2000. Case study: Risk prioritization and ISO 14001 at Acushnet Rubber Company, Environmental Quality Management. Project Management Institute (2009) Practice standard for project risk management, USA, Project Management Institute. PMI Standards Committee, 2008. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. Project Management Institute. Newtown Square, PA. Susman, G. I. and Evered, R. D. (1978) ’An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(4), 582-603. Read More